(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina Register v.9 no. 22 (2/15/1995)"

Z_j Kl^rJ / 74-34-/- Az/^lbT- 



The 



NORTH CAROLINA 

REGISTER 



IN THIS ISSUE 



COW a 
TITUl 

itiomI 



EXECUTIVE ORDERS 



IN ADDITION 

Tax Review Board 



PROPOSED RULES 

Architecture, Board of 

Cultural Resources 

Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 

Human Resources 

Secretary of State 



LIST OF RULES CODDTED 



RRC OBJECTIONS 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



RECEIVES 



FEB 16 1995 

KATHRINl R EVERETT 
LAW LIBRARY 



ISSUE DATE: February 15, 1995 



Volume 9 • Issue 22 • Pages 1883 - 1962 



INFORMATION ABOUT THE NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER AND ADMINISTRATIVE CODF. 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 

The North Carolina Register is published twice a month and 
contains information relating to agency, executive, legislative and 
judicial actions required by or affecting Chapter 150B of the General 
Statutes. All proposed administrative rules and notices of public 
hearings filed under G.S. 1 50B-2 1 .2 must be published in the Register. 
The Register will typically comprise approximately fifty pages per 
issue of legal text. 

State law requires that a copy of each issue be provided free of 
charge to each county in the state and to various state officials and 
institutions. 

The North Carolina Register is available by yearly subscription at 
a cost of one hundred and five dollars ($105.00) for 24 issues. 
Individual issues may be purchased for eight dollars ($8.00). 

Requests for subscription to the North Carolina Register should be 
directed to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P. O. Drawer 27447, 
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. 

ADOPTION, AMENDMENT, AND REPEAL OF 
RULES 

The following is a generalized statement of the procedures to be 
followed for an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule. For the 
specific statutory authority, please consult Article 2A of Chapter 1 50B 
of the General Statutes. 

Any agency intending to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule must first 
publish notice of the proposed action in the North Carolina Register. 
The notice must include the time and place of the public hearing (or 
instructions on how a member of the public may request a hearing); a 
statement of procedure for public comments; the text of the proposed 
rule or the statement of subject matter; the reason for the proposed 
action; a reference to the statutory authority for the action and the 
proposed effective date. 

Unless a specific statute provides otherwise, at least 15 days must 
elapse following publication of the notice in the North Carolina 
Registerbefote the agency may conduct the public hearing and at least 
30 days must elapse before the agency can take action on the proposed 
rule. An agency may not adopt a rule that differs substantially from the 
proposed form published as part of the public notice, until the adopted 
version has been published in the North Carolina Register for an 
additional 30 day comment period. 

When final action is taken, the promulgating agency must file the 
rule with the Rules Review Commission (RRC). After approval by 
RRC, the adopted rule is filed with the Office of Administrative 
Hearings (OAH). 

A rule or amended rule generally becomes effective 5 business 
days after the rule is filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings 
for publication in the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC). 

Proposed action on rules may be withdrawn by the promulgating 
agency at any time before final action is taken by the agency or before 
filing with OAH for publication in the NCAC. 



TEMPORARY RULES 

Under certain emergency conditions, agencies may issue ten 
rary rules. Within 24 hours of submission to OAH, the Codifn 
Rules must review the agency's written statement of findings of 
for the temporary rule pursuant to the provisions in G.S. 150B-21 
the Codifier determines that the findings meet the criteria in 
150B-21.1, the rule is entered into the NCAC. If the Cod 
determines that the findings do not meet the criteria, the rule is retu 
to the agency. The agency may supplement its findings and resul 
the temporary rule for an additional review or the agency may resp 
that it will remain with its initial position. The Codifier, thereafter, 
enter the rule into the NCAC. A temporary rule becomes effe< 
either when the Codifier of Rules enters the rule in the Code or or 
sixth business day after the agency resubmits the rule without cha 
The temporary rule is in effect for the period specified in the rule or 
days, whichever is less. An agency adopting a temporary rule n 
begin rule-making procedures on the permanent rule at the same t 
the temporary rule is filed with the Codifier. 

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 

The North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) is a compila 
and index of the administrative rules of 25 state agencies arid 
occupational licensing boards. The NCAC comprises approxima 
15,000 letter size, single spaced pages of material of which appr< 
mately 35% is changed annually. Compilation and publication of 
NCAC is mandated by G.S. 150B-21.18. 

The Code is divided into Titles and Chapters. Each state agenc 
assigned a separate title which is further broken down by chapt 
Title 21 is designated for occupational licensing boards. 

The NCAC is available in two formats. 

(1) Single pages may be obtained at a minimum cost of I 
dollars and 50 cents ($2.50) for 10 pages or less, plus fift 
cents ($0.15) per each additional page. 

(2) The full publication consists of 53 volumes, totaling 
excess of 15,000 pages. It is supplemented monthly « 
replacement pages. A one year subscription to the 
publication including supplements can be purchased 
seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00). Individual v 
umes may also be purchased with supplement service. 1 
newal subscriptions for supplements to the initial publicat 
are available. 

Requests for pages of rules or volumes of the NCAC should 
directed to the Office of Administrative Hearings. 

CITATION TO THE NORTH CAROLINA 
REGISTER 

The North Carolina Register is cited by volume, issue, p< 
number and date. 1:1 NCR 101-201, April 1, 1986 refers to Volu 
1 , Issue 1 , pages 101 through 201 of the North Carolina Registerissv 
on April 1, 1986. 



FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Administra- 
tive Hearings, ATTN: Rules Division, P.O. Drawer 27447, 
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7447, (919) 733-2678. 



NORTH 
CAROLINA 
REGISTER 




Office of Administrative Hearings 

P. O. Drawer 27447 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447 

(919) 733-2678 



ISSUE CONTENTS 



I. EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

Executive Orders 69-71 1883 

II. IN ADDITION 

Tax Review Board 1885 

ID. PROPOSED RULES 
Cultural Resources 

State Library, Division of 1889 

Environment, Health, and 
Natural Resources 

Environmental Management .... 1899 
Wildlife Resources 1900 

Human Resources 

Aging, Division of 1890 

Medical Assistance 1891 

Licensing Board 
Architecture, Board of 1905 

Secretary of State 
Securities Division 1904 



Julian Mann III, 

Director 
James R. Scarcella Sr., 

Deputy Director 
Molly Masich, 

Director ofAPA Services 



Staff: 

Ruby Creech, 

Publications Coordinator 
Teresa Kilpatrick, 

Editorial Assistant 
Jean Shirley, 

Editorial Assistant 

This publication is printed on permanent, 
acid-free paper in compliance with 
G.S. 125-11.13. 



IV. LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 



1917 



V. RRC OBJECTIONS 1923 

VI. CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 

Index to ALJ Decisions 1927 

Text of Selected Decisions 

94 DOA 0516 1943 

94 OSP 0655 1949 

VII. CUMULATrVE INDEX 1959 







NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 

Publication Schedule 

(November 1994 - September 1995) 






Volume 
and 
Issue 

Number 


Issue 
Date 


Last Day 

for 

Filing 


Last Day 
for Elec- 
tronic 
Filing 


Earliest 

Date for 

Pubbc 

Hearing 

15 days 

from 

notice 


* End of 

Required 

Comment 

Period 

30 days 

from 

notice 


Last Day 

to Submit 

toRRC 


** Earliest 

Effective 

Date 


9:15 


11/01/94 


10/11/94 


10/18/94 


11/16/94 


12/01/94 


12/20/94 


02/01/95 


9:16 


11/15/94 


10/24/94 


10/31/94 


11/30/94 


12/15/94 


12/20/94 


02/01/95 


9:17 


12/01/94 


11/07/94 


11/15/94 


12/16/94 


01/03/95 


01/20/95 


03/01/95 


9:18 


12/15/94 


11/22/94 


12/01/94 


12/30/94 


01/17/95 


01/20/95 


03/01/95 


9:19 


01/03/95 


12/08/94 


12/15/94 


01/18/95 


02/02/95 


02/20/95 


04/01/95 


9:20 


01/17/95 


12/21/94 


12/30/94 


02/01/95 


02/16/95 


02/20/95 


04/01/95 


9:21 


02/01/95 


01/10/95 


01/18/95 


02/16/95 


03/03/95 


03/20/95 


05/01/95 


9:22 


02/15/95 


01/25/95 


02/01/95 


03/02/95 


03/17/95 


03/20/95 


05/01/95 


9:23 


03/01/95 


02/08/95 


02/15/95 


03/16/95 


03/31/95 


04/20/95 


06/01/95 


9:24 


03/15/95 


02/22/95 


03/01/95 


03/30/95 


04/17/95 


04/20/95 


06/01/95 


10:1 


04/03/95 


03/13/95 


03/20/95 


04/18/95 


05/03/95 


05/22/95 


07/01/95 


10:2 


04/17/95 


03/24/95 


03/31/95 


05/02/95 


05/17/95 


05/22/95 


07/01/95 


10:3 


05/01/95 


04/07/95 


04/17/95 


05/16/95 


05/31/95 


06/20/95 


08/01/95 


10:4 


05/15/95 


04/24/95 


05/01/95 


05/30/95 


06/14/95 


06/20/95 


08/01/95 


10:5 


06/01/95 


05/10/95 


05/17/95 


06/16/95 


07/03/95 


07/20/95 


09/01/95 


10:6 


06/15/95 


05/24/95 


06/01/95 


06/30/95 


07/17/95 


07/20/95 


09/01/95 


10:7 


07/03/95 


06/12/95 


06/19/95 


07/18/95 


08/02/95 


08/21/95 


10/01/95 


10:8 


07/14/95 


06/22/95 


06/29/95 


07/31/95 


08/14/95 


08/21/95 


10/01/95 


10:9 


08/01/95 


07/11/95 


07/18/95 


08/16/95 


08/31/95 


09/20/95 


11/01/95 


10:10 


08/15/95 


07/25/95 


08/01/95 


08/30/95 


09/14/95 


09/20/95 


11/01/95 


10:11 


09/01/95 


08/11/95 


08/18/95 


09/18/95 


10/02/95 


10/20/95 


12/01/95 


10:12 


09/15/95 


08/24/95 


08/31/95 


10/02/95 


10/16/95 


10/20/95 


12/01/95 



This table is published as a public service, and the computation of time periods are not to be deemed binding 
or controlling. Time is computed according to 26 NCAC 2B .0103 and the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 
6. 

* An agency must accept comments for at least 30 days after the proposed text is published or until the date 

of any public hearing, whichever is longer. See G.S. 1 5 OB-2 1.2(f) for adoption procedures. 

** The "Earliest Effective Date " is computed assuming that the agency follows the publication schedule above, 

that the Rules Review Commission approves the rule at the next calendar month meeting after submission, and 

that RRC delivers the rule to the Codifier of Rules five (5) business days before the 1st day of the next calendar 

month. 

Revised 10/94 



EXECUTIVE ORDERS 



EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 69 

GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON 

CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND 

FAMHJES 

WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina should 
promote and encourage collaboration and collabo- 
rative planning and delivery of services among 
State agencies that serve the needs of children and 
families; 

WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina should 
make more effective use of existing federal and 
state resources and programs; 

WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina should 
streamline government, including the delivery of 
services and eliminate duplication; and 

WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina should 
promote and enhance state-level leadership in 
achieving these goals; 

NOW, THEREFORE, by the power vested in me 
as Governor by the Constitution and laws of the 
State of North Carolina, IT IS ORDERED: 

Section 1. Establishment. 

The Governor's Council on Children, Youth, and 
Families is hereby established. 

Section 2. Duties. 

(a) The Governor's Council on Children, Youth, 
and Families shall: 

(i) Provide state-level leadership on issues 
affecting children, youth, and families, 
including children with special needs; 

(ii) Foster collaboration and coordination 
between and among the many state 
agencies with responsibility for provid- 
ing services to children, youth, and 
families; 

(iii) Help develop and carry out a unified 
and comprehensive long-range 
children's and families' agenda; and 

(iv) Promote accountability for achieving 
the State's goals in a timely and 
effective manner. 

(b) The Council shall meet biannually and report 
to the Governor on its progress in meeting the 
intent and purpose set forth in this Executive 
Order. The Governor may convene the Council at 
other times during the year as necessary to achieve 
these goals. 



(c) The Governor shall chair the Council. The 
Governor shall appoint a Vice-Chair of the Coun- 
cil, who shall chair the Council in his absence. 

(d) The Governor shall set the agenda for the 
Council's meetings and shall take into consider- 
ation its reports in setting policy for children, 
youth, and families. 

(e) The Council may establish such committees, 
task forces, or other working groups as are neces- 
sary to assist in performing its duties. The Coun- 
cil may invite non-members to serve on such 
groups. 

(f) Existing executive commissions, councils, 
and advisory committees with responsibility for 
issues affecting children, youth, and families shall 
advise and assist the Council in performing its 
duties and responsibilities. 

Section 3. Membership. 

(a) The Council shall consist of the following 
members or their designees: 

(i) The Governor's Senior Education Advi- 
sor; 
(ii) The Secretary of Environment, Health, 

and Natural Resources; 
(iii) The Secretary of Human Resources; 
(iv) The Secretary of Cultural Resources; 
(v) The Secretary of Commerce; 
(vi) The Secretary of Transportation; and 
(vii) The Secretary of Administration. 

(b) The following individuals shall be invited to 
serve as members of the Council and may appoint 
a designee: 

(i) The Lieutenant Governor; 

(ii) The Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
tion; 

(iii) The Chair of the State Board of Educa- 
tion; 

(iv) The Commissioner of Labor; 
(v) The President of the North Carolina 
Community College System; 

(vi) The President of the University of 
North Carolina; 

(vii) The Director of the Administrative 

Office of the Courts; 
(viii) The Chair of the North Carolina Part- 
nership for Children, Inc.; 

(ix) The Chairs of the House of Representa- 
tives and Senate appropriations subcom- 
mittees for human resources (one from 
each body); and 
(x) The Chairs of the House of Representa- 
tives and Senate substantive committees 
with responsibility for human services 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1883 



EXECUTIVE ORDERS 



programs affecting children, youth and 
families (one from each body). 

Section 4. Staff Assistance. 

The Department of Human Resources shall 
provide clerical support and other services re- 
quired by the Council. 

This order shall be effective immediately. 

Done in the City of Raleigh this the 24th day of 
January, 1995. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 70 
REISSUING EXECUTIVE ORDER 

NO. 37, CITIZEN ACCESS TO 

PUBLIC RECORDS MAINTAINED 

BY STATE GOVERNMENT 

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 37, signed 
January 28, 1994, expired October 28, 1994; and 

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 37 implement- 
ed a trial period for the Departments of Adminis- 
tration and Transportation to develop an electronic 
register of public information; and 

WHEREAS, the Information Resources Manage- 
ment Commission has reviewed the implementation 
of Executive Order No. 37 and has recommended 
that the trial period be extended. 

NOW, THEREFORE, by the power vested in me 
as Governor by the Constitution and laws of the 
State of North Carolina, IT IS ORDERED: 

Executive Order No. 37, Citizen Access to 
Public Records Maintained by State Government, 
is hereby reissued, without changes, until July 1, 
1995. The IRMC is requested to make further 
recommendations prior to the expiration of this 
Order. 

This Order shall be effective immediately. 

Done in the City of Raleigh this the 25th day of 
January, 1995. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 71 

EXTENDING EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 AND 19 

By the power vested in me as Governor by the 
Constitution and laws of the State of North Caroli- 



na, IT IS ORDERED: 



Executive Orders are hereby 



The following 
extended: 

A. Executive Order No. 2, Small Business 
Council; 

B. Executive Order No. 6, Entrepreneurial 
Development Board; 

C. Executive Order No. 9, Commission foi 
a Competitive North Carolina; 

D. Executive Order No. 10, Quality Leader 
ship Awards Council; 

E. Executive Order No. 11, Governor's 
Council of Fiscal Advisors; 

F. Executive Order No. 15, Coordinating 
Committee on the Americans with Dis- 
abilities Act; 

G. Executive Order No. 16, The Geographic 
Information Coordinating Council; 

H. Executive Order No. 17, North Carolina 

Emergency Response Commission; and 
I. Executive Order No. 19, Center for the 
Prevention of School Violence. 

This Order shall be effective immediately and 
shall expire two years from this day. 

Done in the City of Raleigh this the 26th day of 
January, 1995 



1884 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



IN ADDITION 



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 



COUNTY OF WAKE 



[N THE MATTER OF: 

rhe Proposed Assessment of corporate income 
tax for the taxable years of 1988, 1989, 1990 
assessed against BellSouth Telecommunications, 
Inc. (formerly Southern Bell Telephone and 
Telegraph Company). 



BEFORE THE 
TAX REVIEW BOARD 



ADMINISTRATIVE 
DECISION NUMBER: 



287 



THIS MATTER was heard before the Tax Review Board on 9 November 1994 in the City of Raleigh, 
Wake County, North Carolina. It involves an appeal by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (formerly 
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company), (hereinafter "Taxpayer") from the Final Decision of 
Michael A. Hannah, Assistant Secretary for Legal and Administrative Services (hereinafter "Assistant 
Secretary") entered on 20 April 1994, sustaining a proposed assessment of corporate income tax for the 
taxable years of 1988, 1989 and 1990. 

Chairman Harlan E. Boyles presided over the hearing with acting member, the Honorable Hugh 
Wells, Chairman, Utilities Commission and duly appointed member, Jeff D. Batts, Attorney at Law 
participating. 

Joseph D. Joyner, Jr. and C. Wells Hall, III, Attorneys at Law, appeared of behalf of the Taxpayer; 
Kay Linn Miller, Associate Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Department of Revenue. 

AND IT APPEARING TO THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS: that the findings of fact made by the 
Assistant Secretary were supported by competent, material and substantial evidence in the record; that based 
upon the findings of fact, the Assistant Secretary's conclusions of law were fully supported by the findings 
of fact; therefore based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the decision of the Assistant 
Secretary should be confirmed. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the Final Decision of the Assistant Secretary is confirmed in 
every respect. 

Entered this the 20th day of January, 1995. 



TAX REVIEW BOARD 



Harlan E. Boyles, Chairman 
State Treasurer 



Hugh Wells, Ex Officio Member 
Chairman Utilities Commission 



Jeff D. Batts, Appointed Member 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1885 





IN ADDITION 




STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 




BEFORE THE 
TAX REVIEW BOARD 


COUNTY OF WAKE 






IN THE MATTER OF: 






The Proposed Assessment of corporate 






income tax for the taxable years ended 30 




ADMINISTRATIVE 


June 1988 and 30 June 1989 assessed 




DECISION NUMBER: 288 


against J. W. Cook & Sons, Inc. 







THIS MATTER was heard before the Tax Review Board on 9 November 1994 in the City o 
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. It involves an appeal by J. W. Cook & Sons, Inc., (hereinafte 
"Taxpayer") from the Final Decision of the Deputy Secretary of Revenue (hereinafter "Deputy Secretary" 
entered on 28 August 1992, sustaining a proposed assessment of corporate income tax for the taxable year 
ended 30 June 1988 and 30 June 1989. 

Chairman Harlan E. Boyles presided over the hearing with acting member, the Honorable Hug! 
Wells, Chairman, Utilities Commission and duly appointed member, Jeff D. Batts, Attorney at Law 
participating. 

William P. Pinna, Attorney at Law, appeared of behalf of the Taxpayer; Kay Linn Miller, Associate 
Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Department of Revenue. 

AND IT APPEARING TO THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS: that the findings of fact made by the 
Deputy Secretary were supported by competent, material and substantial evidence in the record; that based 
upon the findings of fact, the Deputy Secretary's conclusions of law were fully supported by the findings of 
fact; therefore based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the decision of the Deputy Secretary 
should be confirmed. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the Final Decision of the Deputy Secretary is confirmed in 

every respect. 

Entered this the 20th day of January, 1995. 



TAX REVIEW BOARD 



Harlan E. Boyles, Chairman 
State Treasurer 



Hugh Wells, Ex Officio Member 
Chairman Utilities Commission 



Jeff D. Batts, Appointed Member 



1886 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



IN ADDITION 



5TATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 



COUNTY OF WAKE 



N THE MATTER OF: 
rhe Proposed Assessment of additional sales 
ind use tax for the period of January 1 , 1 986 
hrough February 28, 1990 by the North 
Carolina Secretary of Revenue assessed against 
Robert L. Sutphen, d/b/a/ Southern Straw 



BEFORE THE 
TAX REVIEW BOARD 



ADMINISTRATIVE 
DECISION NUMBER: 



289 



THIS MATTER was heard before the Tax Review Board (hereinafter "Board") on 13 September 1994 
n the City of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. It involves an appeal by Robert L. Sutphen, d/b/a/ 
Southern Straw (hereinafter "Taxpayer") from the decision of the Michael A. Hannah, Assistant Secretary for 
Legal and Administrative Services (hereinafter "Assistant Secretary") entered on 21 March 1994 sustaining 
i proposed assessment of sales and use tax, plus penalties and interest, for the period of January 1, 1986 
hrough February 28, 1990. 

Chairman Harlan E. Boyles presided over the hearing with acting member, the Honorable Hugh 
Wells, Chairman Utilities Commission and duly appointed member, Jeff D. Batts, Attorney at Law 
participating. 

Robert L. Sutphen appeared pro se; Kay Linn Miller, Associate Attorney General, appeared on behalf 
of the Department of Revenue. 

ISSUE 

Under G.S. § 105-241.2, the Tax Review Board is granted jurisdiction to hear appeals timely filed 
by a taxpayer regarding administrative review of the taxpayer's liability for the tax or additional tax assessed 
by the Secretary. The issue considered is: 

1. Did the Taxpayer file a timely notice of intent to file a petition for review and a timely 

petition requesting review with the Tax Review Board? 

Under the guidelines of G.S. § 105-241. 2(a), the Taxpayer must take the following action in order 
to obtain administrative review: 

1. Within 30 days after the Secretary's final decision is issued, file with the 
Tax Review Board, with a copy to the Secretary, notice of intent to file a 
petition for review. 

2. Within 60 days after the Secretary's final decision is issued, file with the 
Tax Review Board, with a copy to the Secretary, a petition requesting 
administrative review and stating in concise terms the grounds upon which 
review is sought. 

THE TAX REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND DOCUMENTS 
FILED IN THIS MATTER: 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1887 



IN ADDITION 



1. 



On 21 March 1994, the Secretary's final decision was mailed to the Taxpayer. 



2. On 19 May 1994, Taxpayer's attorney wrote the Board requesting review of the case. 

3. On 26 May 1994, the Board's Executive Secretary acknowledged receipt of the 19 May 199* 
letter as an untimely notice of intent to file a petition for review. 

4. On 16 August 1994, Taxpayer filed a letter with the Board setting forth his reasons foi 
requesting administrative review. 

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FACTS, THE TAX REVIEW BOARD CONCLUDES AS A 
MATTER OF LAW: 

1. The time limits specified in G.S. 105-241. 2(a) are jurisdictional in nature; the Board has no 
authority to consider petitions not filed within the time prescribed by law. 

2. Because the Taxpayer did not file a petition within the time prescribed by 105-241. 2(a), the 
Taxpayer's appeal must be dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Taxpayer's appeal be, and is hereby, DISMISSED. 

Entered this 27th day of January, 1 995 . 

TAX REVIEW BOARD 



Harlan E. Boyles, Chairman 
State Treasurer 



Hugh Wells, Ex Officio Member 
Chairman Utilities Commission 



Jeff D. Batts, Appointed Member 



1888 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



IN ADDITION 



TITLE 7 - DEPARTMENT OF 
CULTURAL RESOURCES 



Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 
150B-21.2 that the Department of Cultural Re- 
sources, Division of State Library intends to amend 
rule cited as 7 NCAC 2E . 0301. 

1 he proposed effective date of this action is May 
1, 1995. 

Instructions on How to Demand a Public Hearing 
(must be requested in writing within 15 days of 
notice): A public hearing may be requested by 
sending a written request to Caroline Shepard, 
State Library of North Carolina, 109 E. Jones St., 
Raleigh, NC 27601-2807, fax (919) 733-8748. 

Reason for Proposed Action: This Rule change 
is being made to be more responsive to units of 
local government by formally adopting the special 
provision that was included in the Current Opera- 
tions Appropriations Act of 1993 (Senate Bill 27, 
Section 38). 

{comment Procedures: Comments may be submit- 
ted in writing to Caroline Shepard, State Library 
of North Carolina, 109 E. Jones St. , Raleigh, NC 
27601-2807, fax (919) 733-8748. 

CHAPTER 2 - DIVISION OF 
STATE LIBRARY 

SUBCHAPTER 2E - LIBRARY 
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 

SECTION .0300 - ALLOCATION 
OF STATE AID TO PUBLIC LIBRAREES 

0301 QUALD7ICATIONS FOR GRANTS 

Libraries requesting funding from the aid to 
public libraries fund must meet the following 
requirements: 

(1) Be legally established as required by 
North Carolina statutes. 

(2) Provide library services easily available 
without discrimination to all residents of 
the political subdivision supporting the 
library. 

(3) Employ a director having a valid North 
Carolina public librarian certificate and 
successful experience as a public librarian 



(4) 



(5) 



or administrator. 

Secure operational funds from local 
government sources at least equal to the 
amount budgeted the previous year. A 
grant to a local library system from the 
Aid to Public Libraries Fund shall not be 
terminated but shall be reduced propor- 
tionately by the Department of Cultural 
Resources if the local funding for a pub- 
lic library was reduced by the local gov- 
erning body as part of an overall general 
budgetary reduction reflecting local eco- 
nomic conditions and local government 
fiscal constraints. State funds shall not 
replace local funds appropriated for 
public library operations. 
Expend funds as authorized in the adopt- 
ed budget. Any library having an unen- 
cumbered operational balance of more 
than 17 percent of the previous year's 
operating receipts will have the difference 
deducted from its state allocation. 
Obtain aggregate operational funds from 
local sources at least equaling state aid. 
Pay salaries for professional positions 
funded from state aid that are no less 
than the scale required by the Division of 
State Library. 

Obtain an annual audit of library ac- 
counts by a certified public accountant 
and submit a copy of this audit to the 
Division of State Library. 
Submit a copy of bylaws and personnel 
policies to the Division of State Library. 
Compile an assessment of the library 
needs of the community, prepare and 
annually revise a long-range plan of 
service, and submit copies of needs as- 
sessment and long-range plans of service 
to the Division of State Library. 
Submit a copy of the agreement establish- 
ing the regional or county library, if 
composed of more than one local govern- 
mental unit. 

Meet the following stipulations when 
establishing a new library or withdrawing 
from a larger system: 

qualify for state aid on the first day of 

the fiscal year, 

operate successfully during that year, 

apply for state aid after the year of 

successful operation. 



(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 
(10) 



(11) 



(12) 



(a) 

(b) 
(c) 



Statutory Authority G.S. 125-7; 143B-10. 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1889 



PROPOSED RULES 



TITLE 10 - DEPARTMENT OF 
HUMAN RESOURCES 

Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 
150B-21.2 that the Division of Aging intends to 
amend rules cited as 10 NCAC 22J .0308; 22 R 
.0201 and .0202. 

1 he proposed effective date of this action is May 
1, 1995. 

1 he public hearing will be conducted at 2:00 
p.m. on March 3, 1995 at the Division of Aging, 
693 Palmer Drive, Room 127, Raleigh, NC. 

Jxeasonfor Proposed Action: 

10 NCAC 22] .0308 - Clarification of who may 

serve as in-home aides for the elderly. 

10 NCAC 22R .0201 - .0202 - Clarification of 

boards of commissioners and area agencies on 

aging responsibilities through the Home and 

Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults. 

(comment Procedures: Written comments will be 
received by the Director of the Division of Aging 
through March 18, 1995. Verbal comments will 
be heard at the public hearing. 

CHAPTER 22 - AGING 

SUBCHAPTER 22J - IN-HOME AIDE 
SERVICES FOR OLDER ADULTS 

SECTION .0300 - SERVICE PROVISION 

.0308 SELECTION OF AIDES 

Th e following p e rsons shall b e allow e d to serv e 
as in hom e aides: 



W- 



m- 



Non r e lativ e s who 



48- 



-efi 



ar e l a y e ars ot ag e or 
old e r who ar e qualifi e d to perform tho 
tasks n ee ded by th e oli e nt. 
R e latives of th e cli e nt, who for this pur 
poso are par e nt, spous e , child or sibling, 
who ar e 18 y e ars of ag e or old e r and 
who give up employment or tho opportu 
nity for employment in ord e r to p e rform 
the — service and — whe — ar e qualifi e d to 
p e rform th e tasks ne e d e d by the olient. 
Note: — P e rson s who cannot s e rve as in hom e aides 
are thos e und e r 18 years of ag e ; thos e who ar e not 
qualifi e d to p e rform th e tasks n e eded by th e oli e nt; 
and tho se who ar e r e lativ e s of th e cli e nt, who for 



this purpos e ar e parent, spouse, ohild, or oiblinj 
who are unemploy e d or who do not hav e to giv 



up employm e nt in ord e r to provide tho oorvioo r 

Agencies must have written policy regarding wh 
may serve as in-home aids. The written polic 



shall include, at a minimum, the following require 



ments about who may serve as in-home aides: 

(1) persons 18 years of age or older o 
emancipated minors; and 

(2) persons who are qualified to perform tb 
tasks needed by the client; and 

(3) whether or not the agency allows thi 
hiring of relatives to serve as the client' 
in-home aide. If the agency allows \ 
relative to be the client's in-home aide 
the policy must also address thj 
following requirements: 

that relatives of the client. 



fa) 



for thi: 



ill 

iiil 
liiil 

m 



£b) 



(4} 



purpose are either: 

a parent, 

spouse, 

child, 

or sibling of the client including stej 

relations of the client for any o: 

those; and 
that the relative must have given u 
employment or the opportunity foi 
employment in order to perform the 
tasks needed by the client; and 
any other hiring guidelines established by 
the agency. 



Statutory Authority 
143B-181.9A. 



G.S. 1 43 B- 18 1.1(c) 



SUBCHAPTER 22R - HOME AND 

COMMUNITY CARE BLOCK GRANT 

FOR OLDER ADULTS 

SECTION .0200 - BASIS FOR GRANTING 
BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO COUNTIES 

.0201 DEFINITIONS 

(a) "County Block Grant Advisory Committee" 
means a committee, appointed annually by the 
Board of County Commissioners, that represents a 
broad range of aging interest in the county. The 
committee serves to build local consensus for the 
County Funding Plan and to function as a resource 
for the County Lead Agency for Planning and 
Coordination by obtaining input from service 
provider interests, and older consumers and their 
families. A representative of the Area Agency on 
Aging shall be appointed to the committee when 
the Area Agency on Aging is not designated as the 



1890 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



County Lead Agency for Planning and 
Coordination, as specified in K) NCAC 22R 
.0201(c). 

(b) "County Funding Plan" means the format 
developed by the Division of Aging in which 
counties identify the County Lead Agency for 
Planning and Coordination, service providers, 
services, and budgetary data for the provision of 
Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older 
Adults services in the county during the State 
Fiscal Year. 

(c) "County Lead Agency for Planning and 
Coordination" means a public or private 
non-private agency or office which is designated 
annually by the Board of County Commissioners 
for the purpose of developing the County Funding 
Plan for the provision of services through the 
Block Grant. County Funding Plan development 
responsibilities include directing the work of the 
County Block Grant Advisory Committee, 
facilitating a public hearing for the County 
Funding Plan prior to approval by submission to 
the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and 
ensuring that the approved County Funding Plan 
meets all requirements as specified by the Division 
of Aging prior to submission for approval to the 
Area Agency on Aging. 



Statutory Authority G. S. 
143B-181.1(c). 



143B-181.1(a)(ll); 



.0202 COUNTY FUNDING PLANS 

(a) The County Lead Agency for Planning and 
Coordination shall provide the County Budget 
Officer with a preliminary County Funding Plan 
which, at a minimum, specifies Home and 
Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults 
services, funding levels, and required local 
matching amounts by April 30 of each year. 

(b) Area Agencies on Aging shall grant Home 
and Community Care Block Grant for Older 
Adults funding to Counties on the basis of a the 
recommended County Funding Plan that has been 
approved submitted by the Chairman of the Board 
of Commissioners and submitt e d to th e Ar e a 
Ag e noy on Aging . Area Agencies on Aging shall 
receive the County Funding Plan and, upon 
approval, shall grant funding to the County on the 
basis of the Plan. 

(c) The approv e d County Funding Plan., as 
approved by the Area Agency on Aging, shall be 
wholly a part of the Grant Agreement between the 
County and the Area Agency on Aging for the 
provision of aging services through the Home and 
Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults. 



Statutory Authority G.S. 143B-181.1(a)(ll); 
143B-181.1(c). 






* * * 



ISotice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 
150B-21.2 that the DHR - Division of Medical 
Assistance intends to amend rules cited as 10 
NCAC 26H .0102 and .0104. 

1 he proposed effective date of this action is May 
1, 1995. 

1 he public hearing will be conducted at 1:30 
p.m. on March 17, 1995 at the Division of Medi- 
cal Assistance, 1985 Umstead Drive, Room 132, 
Raleigh, N. C 

MXeason for Proposed Action: To end cost settle- 
ment for OSHA Bloodborne costs and to begin 
payment of non-ambulance medically necessary 
transportation cost. 

Lsomment Procedures: Written comments con- 
cerning this amendment must be submitted by 
March 1 7, 1995 to: Division of Medical Assis- 
tance, 1985 Umstead Drive, Raleigh, N.C., 27603, 
ATTN: Portia Rochelle, APA Coordinator. Oral 
comments may be presented at the hearing. In 
addition, a fiscal impact statement is available 
upon written request from the same address. 

CHAPTER 26 - MEDICAL ASSISTANCE 

SUBCHAPTER 26H - REIMBURSEMENT 
PLANS 

SECTION .0100 - REIMBURSEMENT FOR 
NURSING FACILITY SERVICES 

.0102 RATE SETTING METHODS 

(a) A rate for skilled nursing care and a rate for 
intermediate nursing care is determined annually 
for each facility to be effective for dates of service 
for a twelve month period beginning each October 
1 . Each patient will be classified in one of the two 
categories depending on the services needed. 
Rates are derived from either filed, desk, or field 
audited cost reports for a base year period to be 
selected by the state. Rates developed from filed 
cost reports may be retroactively adjusted if there 
is found to exist more than a two percent differ- 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1891 



PROPOSED RULES 



ence between the filed direct per diem cost and 
either the desk audited or field audited direct per 
diem cost for the same reporting period. Cost 
reports are filed and audited under provisions set 
forth in 10 NCAC 26H .0104. The minimum 
requirements of the 1987 OBRA are met by these 
provisions. 

(b) Each prospective rate consists of two compo- 
nents: a direct patient care rate and an indirect rate 
computed and applied as follows: 

(1) The direct rate is based on the Medic- 
aid cost per day incurred in the follow- 
ing cost centers: 

(A) Nursing, 

(B) Dietary or Food Service, 

(C) Laundry and Linen, 

(D) Housekeeping, 

(E) Patient Activities, 

(F) Social Services, 

(G) Ancillary Services (includes several 
cost centers). 

(2) To compute each facility's direct rate 
for skilled care and intermediate care, 
the direct base year cost per day is 
increased by adjustment factors for 
price changes as set forth in Rule 
.0102(c). 

(A) A facility's direct rates cannot exceed 
the maximum rates set for skilled 
nursing or intermediate nursing care. 
However, the Division of Medical 
Assistance may negotiate direct rates 
that exceed the maximum rate for 
ventilator dependent patients. 
Payment of such special direct rates 
shall be made only after specific prior 
approval of the Division of Medical 
Assistance. 

(B) A standard per diem amount will be 
added to each facility's direct rate, 
including facilities that are limited to 
the maximum rates, for the projected 
statewide average per diem costs of 
the salaries paid to replacement nurse 
aides for those aides in training and 
testing status and other costs deemed 
by HCFA to be facility costs related 
to nurse aide training and testing. 
The standard amount is based on the 
product of multiplying the average 
hourly wage, benefits, and payroll 
taxes of replacement nurse aides by 
the number of statewide hours 
required for training and testing of all 
aides divided by the projected total 



patient days. 

(3) If a facility did not report any costs foi 
either skilled or intermediate nursing 
care in the base year, the state average 
direct rate will be assigned as 
determined in Rule .0102(d) of thi 
Section for the new type of care. 

(4) The direct maximum rates are 
developed by ranking base-year per 
diem costs from the lowest to the 
highest in two separate arrays, one foi 
skilled care and one for intermediate 
care. Each array is weighted by total 
patient days. The per diem cost at the 
80th percentile in each array is selected 
as the base for the maximum rate. The 
base cost in each array is adjusted foi 
price changes as set forth in Rule 
.0102(c) of this Section to determine 
the maximum statewide direct rates for 
skilled care and intermediate care. 

(5) Effective October 1, 1990, the direct 
rates will be adjusted as follows: 

(A) A standard per diem amount will be 

added to each facility's skilled ar.J 

intermediate rate to account for the 

combined expected average additional 

costs for the continuing education of 

nurses' aides; the residents' 

assessments, plans of care, and 

charting of nursing hours for each 

patient; personal laundry and hygiene 

items; and other non-nursing staffing 

requirements. The standard amount is 

equal to the sum of: 

(i) the state average annual salary, 

benefits, and payroll taxes for one 

registered nurse position 

multiplied by the number of 

facilities in the state and divided 

by the state total of patient days; 

(ii) the total costs of personal laundry 

and hygiene items divided by the 

total patient days as determined 

from the FY 1989 cost reports of 

a sample of nursing facilities 

multiplied by the annual 

adjustment factor described in 

Rule .0102(c)(4)(B) of this 

Section; and 

(iii) the state average additional 

pharmacy consultant costs divided 

by 365 days and then divided by 

the average number of beds per 

facility. 



1892 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



(B) A standard amount will be added to 
the intermediate rate of facilities that 
were certified only for intermediate 
care prior to October 1, 1990. This 
amount will be added to account for 
the additional cost of providing eight 
hours of RN coverage and 24 hours 
of licensed nursing coverage. The 
standard amount is equal to the state 
average hourly wage, benefits and 
payroll taxes for a registered nurse 
multiplied by the 16 additional hours 
of required licensed nursing staff 
divided by the state average number 
of beds per nursing facility. A lower 
amount will be added to a facility 
only if it can be determined that the 
facility's intermediate rate prior to 
October 1, 1990 already includes 
licensed nursing coverage above eight 
hours per day. The add-on amount in 
such cases would be equal to the 
exact additional amount required to 
meet the licensed nursing 
requirements. 

(C) The standard amounts in 
Subparagraphs (2)(B), (5)(A), and 
(5)(B) of this Rule, will be retained in 
the rates of subsequent years until the 
year that the rates are derived from 
the actual cost incurred in the cost 
reporting year ending in 1991 which 
will reflect each facility's actual cost 
of complying with all OBRA '87 
requirements. 

(6) Upon completion of any cost reporting 
year any funds received by a facility 
from the direct patient care rates which 
have not been spent on direct patient 
care costs as defined herein are repaid 
to the State. This will be applied by 
comparing a facility's total Medicaid 
direct costs with the combined direct 
rate payments received for skilled and 
intermediate care. Costs in excess of a 
facility's total prospective rate payments 
are not reimbursable. 

(7) The indirect rate is intended to cover 
the following costs of an efficiently and 
economically operated facility: 

(A) Administrative and General, 

(B) Operation of Plant and Maintenance, 

(C) Property Ownership and Use, 

(D) Mortgage Interest. 

(8) Effective for dates of service beginning 



October 1 , 1 984 and ending September 
30, 1985 the indirect rates are fourteen 
dollars and sixty cents ($14.60) for 
each SNF day of care and thirteen 
dollars and fifty cents ($13.50) for each 
ICF day of care. These rates represent 
the first step in a two step transition 
process from the different SNF and ICF 
indirect rates paid in 1983-84 and the 
nearly equal indirect rates that will be 
paid in subsequent years under this plan 
as provided in this Rule. 
(9) Effective for dates of service beginning 
October 1, 1985 and annually thereafter 
per diem indirect rates will be 
computed as follows: 

(A) The average indirect payment to all 
facilities in the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1983 [which is thirteen 
dollars and two cents ($13.02)] will 
be the base rate. 

(B) The base rate will be adjusted for 
estimated price level changes from 
fiscal year 1983 through the year in 
which the rates will apply in 
accordance with the procedure set 
forth in Rule .0102(c) of this Section 
to establish the ICF per diem indirect 
rate. 

(C) The ICF per diem indirect rate shall 
be multiplied by a factor of 1.02 to 
establish the SNF per diem indirect 
rate. This adjustment is made to 
recognize the additional administrative 
expense incurred in the provision of 
SNF patient care. 

(10) Effective for dates of service beginning 
October 1, 1989, a standard per diem 
amount will be added to provide for the 
additional administrative costs of 
preparing for and complying with all 
nursing home reform requirements. 
The standard amount is based on the 
average annual salary, benefits and 
payroll taxes of one clerical position 
multiplied by the number of facilities in 
the state divided by the state total of 
patient days. 

(11) Effective for dates of service beginning 
October 1, 1990, the indirect rate will 
be standard for skilled and intermediate 
care for all facilities and will be 
determined by applying the 1990-91 
indirect cost adjustment factors in Rule 
.0102(c) of this Section to the indirect 



1:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1893 



PROPOSED RULES 



rate paid for SNF during the year 

beginning October 1, 1989. Thereafter 

the indirect rate will be adjusted 

annually by the indirect cost adjustment 

factors. 

(c) Adjustment factors for changes in the price 

level. The rate bases established in Rule .0102(b), 

are adjusted annually to reflect increases or 

decreases in prices that are expected to occur from 

the base year to the year in which the rate applies. 

The price level adjustment factors are computed 

using aggregate base year costs in the following 

manner: 

(1) Costs will be separated into direct and 
indirect cost categories. 

(2) Costs in each category will be 
accumulated into the following groups: 

(A) labor, 

(B) other, 

(C) fixed. 

(3) The relative weight of each cost group 
is calculated to the second decimal 
point by dividing the total costs of each 
group (labor, other, and fixed) by the 
total costs for each category (direct and 
indirect). 

(4) Price adjustment factors for each cost 
group will be established as follows: 

(A) Labor. The expected annual 
percentage change in direct labor 
costs as determined from a survey of 
nursing facilities to determine the 
average hourly wages for RNs, LPNs, 
and aides paid in the current year and 
projected for the rate year. The 
percentage change for indirect labor 
costs is based on the projected 
average hourly wage of N.C. service 
workers. 

(B) Other. The expected annual change 
in the implicit price deflator for the 
Gross National Product as provided 
by the North Carolina Office of State 
Budget and Management. 

(C) Fixed. No adjustment will be made 
for this category, thus making the 
factor zero. 

(D) The weights computed in (c)(3) of this 
Rule shall be multiplied times the 
percentage change computed in 
(c)(4)(A), (B) and (C) of this Rule. 
These products shall be added 
separately for the direct and indirect 
categories. 

(E) The sum computed for each category 



in (c)(4)(D) of this Rule shall be the 
price level adjustment factor for that 
category of rates (direct or indirect) 
for the coming fiscal year. 

(F) However, for the rate period 
beginning October 1, 1991 through 
September 30, 1992 the forecast of 
the N.C. Service Wages percent 
applied to the 1991-92 Inpatient 
Hospital and Intermediate Care 
Facility for the Mentally Retarded 
rates is applied to the Labor 
component weight computed in 
(c)(4)(A) of this Rule. 

(G) For the rate period beginning October 
1, 1991 through September 30, 1992 
the direct adjustment factor 
determined under (c)(4) of this Rule 
will be applied to the direct rate 
adjustments determined under (b)(2), 
(b)(5)(A) and (b)(5)(B) of this Rule 

(d) The skilled and intermediate direct patient 
care rates for new facilities are established at the 
lower of the projected costs in the provider's 
Certificate of Need application inflated to the 
current rate period or the average of industry base 
year costs and adjusted for price changes as set 
forth in Rule .0102(c) of this Section. A new 
facility receives the indirect rate in effect at the 
time the facility is enrolled in the Medicaid 
program. In the event of a change of ownership, 
the new owner receives the same rate of payment 
assigned to the previous owner. 

(e) Each out-of-state provider is reimbursed at 
the lower of the appropriate North Carolina 
maximum rate or the provider's payment rate as 
established by the State in which the provider is 
located. For patients with special needs who must 
be placed in specialized out-of-state facilities, a 
payment rate that exceeds the North Carolina 
maximum rate may be negotiated. 

(f) Specialized Service Rates: 

(1) Head Injury Intensive Rehabilitation 
Services. 
(A) A single all-inclusive prospective per 
diem rate combining both the direct 
and indirect cost components may be 
negotiated for nursing facilities that 
specialize in providing intensive 
rehabilitation services for head-injured 
patients. The rate may exceed the 
maximum rate applicable to other 
Nursing Facility services. A facility 
must specialize to the extent of 
staffing at least 50 percent of its 



1894 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



Nursing Facility licensed beds for 
intensive head-injury rehabilitation 
services. The facility must also be 
accredited by the Commission for the 
Accreditation of Rehabilitation 
Facilities (CARF). 

(B) A facility's initial rate is negotiated 
based on budget projections of 
revenues, allowable costs, patient 
days, staffing and wages. A complete 
description of the facility's medical 
program must also be provided. 
Rates in subsequent years are 
determined by applying the average 
annual skilled nursing care adjustment 
factors to the rate in the previous 
year, unless either the provider or the 
State requests a renegotiation of the 
rate within 60 days of the rate notice. 

(C) Cost reports for this service must be 
filed in accordance with the rules in 
10 NCAC 26H .0104, but there will 
be no cost settlements for any 
differences between cost and 
payments. Since it is appropriate to 
include all financial considerations in 
the negotiation of a rate, a provider 
will not be eligible to receive separate 
payments for return on equity as 
defined in 10 NCAC 26H .0105. 

(2) Ventilator Services. 

(A) Ventilator services approved for 
nursing facilities providing intensive 
services for ventilator dependent 
patients shall be reimbursed at higher 
direct rates as described in 
Subparagraph (b)(2)(A) of this Rule. 
Ventilator services shall be paid by 
combining the enhanced direct rate 
with the nursing facility indirect rate 
determined under Subparagraph 
(b)(ll)of this Rule. 

(B) A facility's initial direct rate shall be 
negotiated based on budget 
projections of revenues, allowable 
costs, patient days, staffing and 
wages. Rates in subsequent years 
shall be determined by applying the 
nursing facility direct adjustment 
factor to the previous 12 month cost 
report direct cost. 

(C) Cost reports and settlements for this 
service shall be in accordance with 10 
NCAC 26H .0104 and return on 
equity is allowed as defined in 10 



NCAC 26H .0105. 

(D) A single all-inclusive prospective per 

diem rate combining both the direct 

and indirect cost components may be 

negotiated for nursing facilities that 

specialize in providing intensive 

services for ventilator-dependent 

patients. The rate may exceed the 

maximum rate applicable to other 

Nursing Facility services. For 

ventilator services, the only facilities 

that shall be eligible for a combined 

single rate are small freestanding 

facilities with less than 21 Nursing 

Facility Beds and that serve only 

patients requiring ventilator services. 

Ventilator services provided in larger 

facilities shall be reimbursed at higher 

direct rates as described in 

Subparagraph (b)(2)(A) of this Rule. 

(g) In addition to th e prosp e ctive direct p e r di e m 

rat e s dev e lop e d und e r this S e ction, e ff e ctiv e July 

-h — 1992, an interim payment add on will b e 

applied to the total rat e to cov e r th e e stimat e d ooet 

r e quir e d under Titl e 29, Part 1910, Subpart Z, 

S e ction — 1910.1030 of th e Cod e of F e deral 

R e gulations. — The interim rate will b e subj e ct to 

final s e ttl e m e nt r e conciliation with r e asonable coot 



of Part 1910. The final 



to me e t th e r e quir e m e nts 
s e ttl e m e nt reoonoiliation will b e e ff e ctuat e d during 
th e annual coot r e port s e ttlem e nt prooess. — An 
interim rate add on to the pro s pective rate will b e 
allow e d, subj e ct to final s e ttl e m e nt r e oonoiliation, 
in subs e quent rat e p e riods until ad e quate cost 
history is availabl e to includ e th e cost of m e eting 
the r e quirem e nts of Part 1910 in the prosp e ctiv e 
rater Effective October J^ 1994 the bloodborne 
pathogen cost required under Title 29, Part 1910, 
Subpart 2^ Section 1910.0130 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations shall be included in the 
nursing facility's direct cost reimbursement. The 
initial per diem amount shall be set at the lower of 
the actual or eightieth percentile of bloodborne 
pathogen costs incurred in fiscal year 1993. 
(h) Religious Dietary Considerations. 

(1) A standard amount may be added to a 
nursing facility's skilled and 
intermediate care rates, that may exceed 
the maximum rates determined under 
Paragraph (b) of this Rule, for special 
dietary need for religious reasons. 

(2) Facilities must apply to receive this 
special payment consideration. In 
applying, facilities must document the 
reasons for special dietary consideration 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1895 



PROPOSED RULES 



for religious reasons and must submit 
documentation for the increased dietary 
costs for religious reasons. Facilities 
must apply for this special benefit each 
time rates are determined from a new 
data base. Fifty or more percent of the 
patients in total licensed beds must 
require religious dietary consideration 
in order for the facility to qualify for 
this special dietary rate add-on. 

(3) The special dietary add-on rate may not 
exceed more than a 30 percent increase 
in the average skilled and intermediate 
care dietary rates calculated for the 
80th percentile of facilities determined 
under Subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule 
and adjusted for annual inflation 
factors. This maximum add-on will be 
adjusted by the direct rate inflation 
factor each year until a new data base is 
used to determine rates. 

(4) This special dietary add-on rate will 
become part of the facility's direct rates 
to be reconciled in the annual cost 
report settlement. 

£i} Effective October J^ 1994 nursing facilities 
are responsible for providing medically necessary 
transportation for residents, unless ambulance 
transportation is needed. Reimbursement shall be 
included in the nursing facility's direct cost. The 
initial amount shall be based on a rjer diem fee 
derived from estimated industry cost for 
transportation and associated salaries. 

fj) This reimbursement limitation shall become 
effective in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 
108A-55(c). 

Authority G.S. 108A-25(b); 108A-54; 108A-55; 29 
C.F.R. 1910, Subpart Z; 42 C.F.R. 447, Subpart 
C. 

.0104 COST REPORTING: AUDITING 
AND SETTLEMENTS 

(a) Each facility that receives payments from the 
North Carolina Medicaid Program must prepare 
and submit a report of its costs and other financial 
information, such as the working trial balance, 
related to reimbursement annually. The report 
must include costs from the fiscal period beginning 
on October 1 and ending on September 30 and 
must be submitted to the state on or before the 
December 31 that immediately follows the 
September 30 year end. A new provider must 
submit a report for the period beginning with the 
date of certification and ending on September 30. 



Hospital based nursing facilities with a fiscal year 
ending other than September 30 and State operated 
facilities with a June fiscal year ending must file 
their cost reports within 90 days after their fiscal 
year ends. Facilities that fail to file their cost 
reports by the due date are subject to payment 
suspension until the reports are filed. The Division 
of Medical Assistance may extend the deadline 30 
days for filing the report if, in its view, good 
cause exists for the delay. 

(b) Cost report format. The cost report must be 
submitted on forms and in a format and medium 
approved by the Division of Medical Assistance 
The account structure for the report is based on the 
chart of accounts published by the American 
Healthcare Association in 1979 but amended or 
modified to the extent necessary to meet the 
special reimbursement requirements of this plan. 
The Division of Medical Assistance will make one 
copy of the cost report format available to each 
facility (combination facilities receive only one) on 
or before July 1 of the reporting year for which 
the report is to be filed. 

(c) Cost finding and allocation. Costs must be 
reported in the cost report in accordance with the 
following rules and in the order of priority stated. 

(1) Costs must be reported in accordance 
with the specific provisions of this plan 
as set forth in this Rule. 

(2) Costs must be reported in conformance 
with the Medicare Provider 
Reimbursement Manual, HCEA 15. 

(3) Costs must be reported in conformance 
with Generally Accepted Accounting 
Principles. 

(d) The specific cost reporting guidelines related 
to this plan are set forth in the following 
Paragraphs. The state will publish guidelines, 
consistent with the provisions of this plan, 
concerning the proper accounting treatment for 
items described in this Rule as related operating 
expenses. The guidelines may be modified prior 
to the beginning of each cost reporting period. In 
no case, however, shall any modifications be 
applied retroactively. A provider should request 
clarification in writing from the state if there is 
uncertainty about the proper cost center 
classification of any particular expense item. 

(1) Nursing Cost Center includes the cost 
of nursing staff, medical supplies, and 
related operating expenses needed to 
provide nursing care to patients, 
including medical records (including 
forms), utilization review, the Medical 
Director and the Pharmacy Consultant. 



1896 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



The amount of nursing time provided to 
each patient must be recorded in order 
to allocate nursing cost between skilled 
and intermediate nursing care. 

(2) Dietary Cost Center includes the cost of 
staff, raw food, and supplies needed to 
prepare and deliver food to patients. 

(3) Laundry and Linen Cost Center 
includes the cost of staff, bed linens 
(replacement mattresses and related 
operating expenses needed to launder 
facility-provided items). 

(4) Housekeeping Cost Center includes the 
cost of staff and supplies needed to 
keep the facility clean. 

(5) Patient Activities Cost Center includes 
the cost of staff, supplies, and related 
operating expenses needed to provide 
appropriate diversionary activities for 
patients. 

(6) Social Services includes the cost of 
social workers and related operating 
expenses needed to provide necessary 
social services to patients. 

(7) Ancillary Cost Center includes the cost 
of all therapy services covered by the 
Medicaid program and billable medical 
supplies. Providers must bill Medicare 
Part B for those ancillary services 
covered under the Medicare Part B 
program. Ancillary cost centers 
include: Radiology, Laboratory, 
Physical Therapy, Occupational 
Therapy, Speech Therapy, Oxygen 
Therapy, Intravenous Fluids, Billable 
Medical Supplies, Parenteral/Enteral 
Therapy and life sustaining equipment, 
such as oxygen concentrators, 
respirators, and ventilators and other 
specifically approved equipment. 

(A) Effective October 1^ 1994, a separate 
ancillary cost center shall be 
established to include costs associated 
with medically related transportation 
for facility residents. Medically 
related transportation costs include the 
costs of vehicles leased or owned by 
the facility, payroll costs associated 
with transporting residents and 
payments to third parties for 
providing these services. 

(8) Administrative and General Cost Center 
includes all costs needed to administer 
the facility including the staff costs for 
the administrator, assistants, billing and 



secretarial personnel, personnel director 
and pastoral expenses. It includes the 
costs of copy machines, dues and 
subscriptions, transportation, income 
taxes, legal and accounting fees, 
start-up, and a variety of other 
administrative costs as set forth in the 
Chart of Accounts. Interest expense 
other than that stemming from 
mortgages or loans to acquire physical 
plant items shall be reported here. 
(9) Property Ownership and Use: 

(A) This cost center includes all allowable 
costs related to the acquisition and/or 
use of the physical assets including 
building, fixed equipment and 
movable equipment, that are required 
to deliver patient care, except the 
special equipment, as specified in 
.0104(d)(7) of this Rule that may be 
charged to the life-sustaining 
equipment cost center. Specifically it 
includes the following items: 

(i) all equipment expense regardless 

of equipment nature, 
(ii) lease expense for all physical 

assets, 
(iii) depreciation of assets utilizing the 

straight line method, 
(iv) interest expense of asset related 

liabilities, (e.g., mortgage 

expense), 
(v) property taxes. 

(B) For the purposes of computing 
allowable lease expense and for 
balance sheet presentation for Return 
on Equity computations (see Rule 
.0105), leases shall not be capitalized. 

(C) In establishing the allowable cost for 
depreciation and for interest on capital 
indebtedness, with respect to an asset 
which has undergone a change of 
ownership, the valuation of the asset 
shall be the lesser of allowable 
acquisition cost less accumulated 
depreciation to the first owner of 
record on or after July 18, 1984 or 
the acquisition cost to the new owner. 
Depreciation recapture will not be 
performed at sale. The method for 
establishing the allowable related 
capital indebtedness shall be as 
follows: 

(i) The allowable asset value shall be 
divided by the actual acquisition 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1897 



PROPOSED RULES 



cost, 
(ii) The product computed in step 1 
shall be multiplied times the value 
of any related capital 
indebtedness, 
(iii) The result shall be the liability 
amount upon which interest may 
be recorded at the rate set forth in 
the debt instrument or such lower 
rate as the state may prove is 
reasonable. The allowable asset 
and liability values established 
through the process in this Rule 
shall be those used in balance 
sheet presentations for return on 
equity computation (see Rule 
.0105). These procedures are 
established to implement the 
provisions of PL 98-369 Section 
2314. 

(10) Operation of Plant and Maintenance 
Cost Center includes all costs necessary 
to operate or maintain the functionality 
and appearance of the plant. These 
include: maintenance staff, utilities, 
repairs and maintenance to all 
equipment. 

(11) Equipment Expense. Equipment is 
defined as an item with a useful life of 
more than two years and a value greater 
than five hundred dollars ($500.00). 
Equipment ownership and use costs 
shall be reported in the Property 
Ownership and Use Cost Center. 
Equipment maintenance and repair costs 
shall be reported in the Operation of 
Plant and Maintenance Cost Center. 
Equipment shall not be reported 
elsewhere. 

(12) Training Expense. Training expense 
must be identified in the appropriate 
benefiting cost center. The costs of 
training nurse aides must be identified 
separately and may include the cost of 
purchasing programs and equipment 
that have been approved by the State 
for training or testing. 

(13) Home Office Costs. Home office costs 
are generally charged to the 
Administrative and General Cost 
Centers. In some cases, however, 
certain personnel costs which are direct 
patient care oriented may be allocated 
to "direct" patient care cost centers if 
time records are maintained to 



document the performance of direct 
patient care services. No Home office 
overhead may be so allocated. The 
basis of this allocation among facilities 
participating in the North Carolina 
Medicaid program may be: 

(A) specific time records of work 
performed at each facility, or 

(B) patient days in each facility to which 
the costs apply relative to the total 
patient days in all the facilities to 
which the costs apply. 

(14) Management Fees. Management fees 
are charged to the Administrative and 
General Cost Center. In some cases, 
however, a portion of a management 
fee may be allocated to a direct patient 
care cost center if time records are 
maintained to document the 
performance of direct patient care 
services. The amount so allocated may 
be equal only to the salary and fringe 
benefits of persons who are performing 
direct patient care services while 
employed by the management company. 
Adequate records to support these costs 
must be made available to staff of the 
Division of Medical Assistance. The 
basis of this allocation among facilities 
participating in the North Carolina 
Medicaid program may be: 

(A) specific time records of work 
performed at each facility, or 

(B) patient days in each facility to which 
the costs apply relative to the total 
patient days in all the facilities to 
which the costs apply. 

(15) Related Organization Costs. It is the 
nursing facility's responsibility to 
demonstrate by convincing evidence to 
the satisfaction of the Division of 
Medical Assistance that the costs are 
reasonable. Reasonable costs of related 
organizations are to be identified in 
accordance with direct and indirect cost 
center categories as follows: 

(A) Direct Cost: 

(i) Compensation of direct care staff 
such as nursing personnel (aides, 
orderlies, nurses), food service 
workers, housekeeping staff and 
other personnel who would 
normally be accounted for in a 
direct cost center, 
(ii) Supplies and services that would 



1898 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



normally be accounted for in a 
direct cost center, 
(iii) Capital, rental, maintenance, 
supplies/repairs and utility costs 
(gas, water, fuel, electricity) for 
facilities that are not typically a 
part of a nursing facility. These 
facilities might include such items 
as warehouses, vehicles for deliv- 
ery and offices which are totally 
dedicated or clearly exceed the 
number, size, or complexity 
required for a normal nursing 
facility, its home office, or man- 
agement company, 
(iv) Compensation of all adminis- 
trative staff who perform no 
duties which are related to the 
nursing facility or its home office 
and who are neither officers nor 
owners of the nursing facilities or 
its home office. 
(B) Indirect Cost: 

(i) Capital, rental, maintenance, 
supplies/repairs, and utility costs 
which are normally or frequently 
a part of a nursing facility. This 
would include, for example, 
kitchen and laundry facilities, 
(ii) Home office costs except for 
salary and fringe benefits of Per- 
sonnel, Accounting and Data 
Processing staff which are allocat- 
ed by acceptable methods are 
direct costs when the work per- 
formed is specific to the related 
organization that provides a direct 
care service or product to the 
provider, 
(iii) Compensation of all administra- 
tive staff who perform any duties 
for the nursing facility or its home 
office, 
(iv) All compensation of all officers 
and owners of the nursing facility 
or its home office, or parent 
corporation. 
The related organization must file a Medicaid 
Cost Statement (DMA-4083) identifying their 
osts, adjustments to costs, allocation of costs, 
equity capital, adjustments to equity capital, and 
^locations of equity capital along with the nursing 
facilities cost report. A home office, or parent 
ompany, will be recognized as a related organiza- 
:ion. Auditable records to support these costs 



must be made available to staff of the Division of 
Medical Assistance and its designated contract 
auditors. Undocumented costs will be disallowed. 
It is the nursing facility's responsibility to demon- 
strate by convincing evidence to the satisfaction of 
the Division of Medical Assistance that the criteria 
in the Provider Reimbursement Manual, Section 
1010, has been met in order to be recognized as an 
exception to the related organization principle. 
When a related organization is deemed an excep- 
tion; reasonable charges by the related organiza- 
tion to the nursing facility are recognized as 
allowable costs; receivable/payables from/to the 
nursing facility and related organization deemed an 
exception are not adjusted from the nursing 
facility's balance sheet in computing equity capital. 

(e) Auditing and Settlement. All filed cost 
reports must be desk audited and interim 
reimbursement settlements made in accordance 
with the provision of this plan. This settlement is 
issued within 1 80 days of the date the cost report 
was filed or within 180 days of December 31 of 
the fiscal year to which the report applies, 
whichever is later. The state may elect to perform 
field audits on any filed cost reports within three 
years of the date of filing and issue a final 
settlement on a time schedule that conforms to 
Federal law and regulation. If the state decides 
not to field audit a facility a final reimbursement 
notice may be issued based on the desk audited 
settlement. The state may reopen and field audit 
any cost report after the final settlement notice to 
comply with Federal law and regulation or to 
enforce laws and regulations prohibiting abuse of 
the Medicaid Program and particularly the 
provisions of this reimbursement plan. 

(f) This reimbursement limitation shall become 
effective in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 
108A-55(c). 

Authority G.S. W8A-25(b); 108A-54; 108A-55; 42 
C.F.R. 447, Subpart C. 

TITLE 15A - DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL 
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 

The Environmental Management Commis- 
sion is extending the public comment period from 
February 20, 1995 to March 20, 1995 for the 
proposed rule modifications in Subchapter 2B 
.0100, 2B .0200 and 2H .0500, governing issuance 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1899 



PROPOSED RULES 



of 401 Water Quality Certifications and water 
quality standards for wetlands. Because of the 
significant public interest in the proposed rules, the 
record will remain open until March 20th to allow 
additional written comments received after Febru- 
ary 20th to become part of the official record. 
The proposed rule changes were published in the 
North Carolina Register, Volume 9, Issue 17, 
pages 1348-1367 (9:17 NCR 1348-1367). The 
proposed rules affected are cited as 15A NCAC 2B 
.0101, .0103, .0109, .0201, .0202, .0220, and 
15A NCAC 2H .0501, .0502, .0503, .0504, 
.0506, and .0507. The Division will accept 
written comments received through March 20, 
1995. For information on the proposed rule 
changes or the comment period extension, contact 
Ron Ferrell, North Carolina Division of Environ- 
mental Management, RO. Box 29535, Raleigh, 
NC 27606-0535, (919-733-0026). 

The Division of Environmental Manage- 
ment is extending the public comment period from 
January 16, 1995, until March 1, 1995, for the 
proposed rules defining potential emissions for 
various types of sources. These rules were pub- 
lished on November 15, 1994 in the North Caroli- 
na Register, Volume 9, Issue 16, pages 1261-1283 
(9:16 NCR 1261-1283). The proposed rules are 
cited as 15A NCAC 2Q .0801 -.0807. All persons 
interested in these matters are invited to submit 
written comments. The Division will accept 
written comments through Wednesday, March 1st 
for inclusion in the hearing record. Comments 
should be sent to and additional information 
concerning the proposals may be obtained by 
contacting: 

Mr. Thomas Allen 

Division of Environmental Management 

P.O. Box 29535 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 

(919) 733-1489 (Phone) 

(919) 733-1812 (Fax) 

Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 
150B-21.2 that the N. C. Wildlife Resources Com- 
mission intends to amend rules cited as 15A NCAC 
WB .0106 and 10F .0354. 

1 he proposed effective date of this action is July 



1, 1995. 

1 he public hearing will be conducted at 10:0 
a.m. on March 6, 1995 at the Archdale Building 
Room 332, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, N 
27604. 

Ixeason for Proposed Action: 

ISA NCAC 10B .0106 - To establish requirement 

and procedures for wildlife damage control agenti 

To establish requirements and procedures fo 

mounting by taxidermists of wildlife and bin 

accidentally killed by automobile. 

15A NCAC 10F .0354 - To regulate boat speed i 

congested area. 

Lsomment Procedures: Interested persons ma 
present their views either orally or in writing 
the hearing. In addition, the record of hearin 
will be open for receipt of written comments froi 
February 15, 1995 through March 17, 1995. Sue 
written comments must be delivered or mailed t 
the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 P 
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, N C. 27604-1188. 

CHAPTER 10 - WILDLIFE RESOURCES 
AND WATER SAFETY 

SUBCHAPTER 10B - HUNTING 
AND TRAPPING 

SECTION .0100 - GENERAL 
REGULATIONS 

.0106 WILDLIFE TAKEN FOR 
DEPREDATIONS OR 
ACCIDENTALLY 

(a) Depredation Permit: 
(1) Endangered or Threatened Species. N 
permit shall be issued to take any ei 
dangered or threatened species of wil< 
life listed under 15A NCAC 101 
reason of depredations to property. A 
individual may take an endangered 
threatened species in immediate defens 
of his own life or of the lives of othe 
without a permit. Any endangered c 
threatened species which may constitu 
a demonstrable but non-immedia 
threat to human safety shall be reporte 
to a federal or state wildlife enforo 
ment officer, who, upon verification < 
the report, may take or remove tl 



1900 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:2 



PROPOSED RULES 



specimen as provided by 15A NCAC 
101 .0002. 

(2) Other Wildlife Species. Except as 
provided in Subparagraph (1) of this 
Paragraph, the Executive Director or an 
agent of the Wildlife Resources Com- 
mission may, upon application of a 
landholder and after such investigation 
of the circumstances as he may require, 
issue a permit to such landholder to 
take any species of wildlife which is or 
has been damaging or destroying his 
property provided there is evidence of 
substantial property damage. No per- 
mit may be issued for the taking of any 
migratory birds and other federally 
protected animals unless a correspond- 
ing valid U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- 
vice depredation permit has been is- 
sued. The permit shall name the spe- 
cies allowed to be taken and, in the 
discretion of the Executive Director or 
an agent , may contain limitations as to 
age, sex or any other condition within 
the species so named. The permit may 
be used only by the landholder or an- 
other person named on the permit. 
,exo e pt that, upon written r e qu e ot of th e 
landhold e r and wh e n it is conclusively 
d e t e rmin e d on th e basis of information 
oubmitt e d by him that ho io incapabl e of 
aooompliohing — the — n e c e ssary — oontrol 
without h e lp, th e nam e o of additional 
p e rsons may b e e nt e r e d upon the perm it 
by th e Executiv e Dir e ctor as authoriz e d 
us e rs. 

(3) Wildlife Damage Control Agents: 
Upon satisfactory completion of a 
Wildlife Resources Commission ap- 
proved training and satisfactory demon- 
stration of a knowledge of wildlife laws 
and safe, humane wildlife handling 
techniques, an individual may apply to 
the Wildlife Resources Commission 
(Commission) to become a Wildlife 
Damage Control Agent (WDCA). 
Those persons approved as agents by 
the Commission may then issue depre- 
dation permits to landholders and list 
themselves as a second party to provide 
the control service. WDCAs may not 
issue depredation permits for big game 
animals, bats, or species listed as en- 
dangered, threatened or special concern 
under Rules 101 .0003, .0004 and 



.0005 of this Chapter. WDCAs must 
report to the Wildlife Resources Com- 
mission the number and disposition of 
animals taken, by county, annually. 
Records must be available for inspec- 
tion by a Wildlife Enforcement officer 
at any time during normal business 
hours. WDCA status may be revoked 



at any time by the Executive Director 
when there is evidence of violations of 
wildlife laws, failure to report, or 
inhumane treatment of animals by the 
WDCA. WDCAs may not charge for 
the permit, but may charge for their 
investigations and control services. In 
order to maintain a knowledge of cur- 
rent laws, rules, and techniques. 
WDCA's must renew their agent status 
every three years by showing proof on 
having attended at least one Wildlife 
Commission a pproved training course 
provided for the purpose of reviewing 
and updating information on wildlife 
laws and safe, humane wildlife handling 
techniques within the previous 12 
months. 

(b) Term of Permit. Each depredation permit 
issued by the Executive Director or an agent shall 
have entered thereon a date or time of expiration 
after which date or time the same shall become 
invalid for any purpose, except as evidence of 
lawful possession of any wildlife that may be 
retained thereunder. 

(c) Manner of Taking: 

(1) Taking Without a Permit. Wildlife 
taken without a permit while 
committing depredations to property 
may, during the open season on the 
species, be taken by the landholder by 
any lawful method. During the closed 
season such depredating wildlife may 
be taken without a permit only by the 
use of firearms. 

(2) Taking With a Permit. Wildlife taken 
under a depredation permit may be 
taken only by the method or methods 
specifically authorized by the permit. 
The — esly — m e thods — that — may — be 
authoriz e d in talcing gam e speci e s, oth e r 
than fox e s, io by th e use of firearms 

and — live — traps. The — p e rmit — may 

authoriz e th« taking ef- foxes, 

furb e aring — animals, — and — nongam e 
animals or birds by th e uso of firearms 
or traps, including st ee l traps. When 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1901 



PROPOSED RULES 



trapping is authorized, in order to limit 
the taking to the intended purpose, the 
permit may specify a reasonable 
distance from the property sought to be 
protected, according to the particular 
circumstances, within which the traps 
must be set. The Executive Director or 
agent may also state in a permit 
authorizing trapping whether or not bait 
may be used and the type of bait, if 
any, that is authorized. In addition to 
any trapping restrictions that may be 
contained in the permit the method of 
trapping must be in accordance with the 
requirements and restrictions imposed 
by G.S. 1 13-291 .6 and other local laws 
passed by the General Assembly . No 
depredation permit shall authorize the 
use of poisons or pesticides in taking 
wildlife except in accordance with the 
provisions of the North Carolina 
Pesticide Law of 1971, the Structural 
Pest Control Act of 1955, and Article 
22A of Chapter 113 of the General 
Statutes of North Carolina. No 
depredation permit shall authorize the 
taking of wildlife by any method by any 
landholder upon the lands of another. 
(3) Intentional Wounding. It is unlawful 
for any landholder, with or without a 
depredation permit, intentionally to 
wound a wild animal in a manner so as 
not to cause its immediate death as 
suddenly and humanely as the 
circumstances permit. 
(d) Disposition of Wildlife Taken: 
(1) Generally. Except as provided by the 
succeeding Subparagraphs of this 
Paragraph, any wildlife killed 
accidentally T or without a permit while 
committing depredations , or under a 
depredation p e rm iH shall be buried or 
otherwise disposed of in a safe and 
sanitary manner on the property, wh e r e 
th e d e pr e dations took plac e , of th e 
landhold e r in whos e nam e th e p e rm it-is 
issu e d or who kills suoh wildlif e whil e 
committing — d e pr e dations. Wildlife 

killed under a depredation permit may 
be transported to an alternate disposal 
site if desired. Anyone in possession of 
carcasses of animals being transported 
under a depredation permit must have 
the depredation permit in their 
possession. Except as provided by the 



(2) 



(3) 



succeeding Subparagraphs of (d)(2) 
through (6) of this Rule, all wildlife 
killed under a depredation permit must 
be buried or otherwise disposed of in a 
safe and sanitary manner. 
Deer. Any landhold e r who lullo a doc* 



und e r — a curr e ntly — valid — deprodatioB 
permit for d ee r must report ouoh kill 



The edible portions of up to five deer 
may be retained by the landholder for 
consumption but must not be 

transported from the property where the 



depredations took place without a valid 
depredation permit. An enforcemen t 



officer, within 2 4 hours and beforo the 



doer is butoh e r e d for consumption to a 
wildlif e e nforc e m e nt offic e r, who upon 



d e t e rmining that th e kill wao lawfully 
mad e within th e scop e of th e permit -aad 



if so requested by the permittee, shall 
provide the permittee a written 
authorization for his own private uoo or 



the use by a charitable organization of 
the edible portions of the carcass. The 
nonedible portions of the carcass, 
including head, hide, feet, and antlers 
shall be disposed of as specified in 
Subparagraph (1) of this Paragraph or 
turned over to a wildlife enforcement 
officer for disposition. When a deer is 
accidentally killed on a road or highway 
by reason of collision with a motor 
vehicle, the law enforcement officer 
who investigates the accident shall 
upon request of the operator of the 
vehicle, provide such operator a written 
permit authorizing him to possess and 
transport the carcass of such deer for 
his personal and lawful use, including 
delivery of such carcass to a second 
person for his private use or the use by 
a charitable organization upon 
endorsement of such permit to such 
person or organization by name and 
when no money or other consideration 
of value is received for such delivery or 
endorsement. 
Fox. Any fox killed accidentally by a 
dog or dogs, motor vehicle, or 
otherwise shall be disposed of as 
provided by Subparagraph (1) of this 
Paragraph. Any fox killed under a 
depredation permit may be disposed of 
in the same manner or, upon 
compliance with the fur tagging 



1902 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



requirements of 15A NCAC 10B .0400, 
the carcass or pelt thereof may be sold 
to a licensed fur dealer. Any live fox 
taken under a depredation permit may 
be sold to a licensed controlled hunting 
preserve for fox in accordance with 
G.S. 113-273(g). 

(4) Furbearing Animals. The carcass or 
pelt of any furbearing animal killed 
during the open season for taking such 
furbearing animal either accidentally or 
for control of depredations to property, 
whether with or without a permit, may 
be sold to a licensed fur dealer 
provided that the person offering such 
carcass or pelt for sale has a valid 
hunting or trapping license, provided 
further that, bobcats and otters may 
only be sold upon compliance with any 
required fur tagging requirement set 
forth in 15A NCAC 10B .0400. 

(5) Animals Taken Alive. Wild animals in 
the order garnivora and beaver shall be 
humanely euthanized either at the site 
of capture or at an a ppropriate facility 
designed to humanely handle the 
euthanasia or released on the property 
where captured. Animals transported 
or held for euthanasia must be 
euthanized within 12 hours of capture. 
Anyone in possession of live animals 
being transported for relocation or 
euthanasia under a depredation permit 
must have the depredation permit in 
their possession. 

(5) Nongam e Animals aed Birds. 

Nongam e — animals — e? — birds — killed 

accid e ntally er fef control ef 

d e pr e dations — may b e disposed of as 
provid e d by Subparagraph (1) of this 
Paragraph or in any oth e r saf e and 
sanitary mann e r. 

(6) A person killing a wild bird or wild 
animal accidentally with a motor 
vehicle or finding a dead wild bird or 
wild animal which was killed 
accidentally may possess that wild bird 
or wild animal for a period not to 
exceed 10 days for the purpose of 
delivering it to a licensed taxidermist 
for preparation. The licensed 
taxidermist may accept the wild bird or 
wild animal after satisfying himself that 
the animal was killed accidentally. The 
taxidermist shall certify and record the 



circumstances 
determined by 



of acquisition as 
his injury. Licensed 



taxidermists shall keep accurate records 

of each wildlife specimen received 

pursuant to the Rule as required by 

Rule 10H .1003 of this Chapter. Upon 

delivery of the finished taxidermy 

product to the person presenting the 

animal, the taxidermist shall give the 

person a receipt in the form required by 

the Wildlife Resources Commission 

indicating the species, date of delivery, 

circumstances of initial acquisition and 

any other information that may be 

required on the form. A copy of this 

receipt shall be filed with the Wildlife 

Resources Commission within 10 days 

of the date of delivery of the mounted 

specimen. The receipt shall serve as 

the non-transferable permit for 

continued possession of the mounted 

specimen and shall be retained by the 

person for as long as the mounted 

specimen is kept. Mounted specimens 

possessed pursuant to this Rule may not 

be sold and, if such specimens are 

transferred by gift or inheritance, the 

new owner must apply for a new permit 

and must submit the written receipt 

originally obtained from the taxidermist 

to document the legality of possession. 

This provision does not allow 

possession of accidentally killed 

raptors; migratory birds; species listed 

as endangered, threatened, or of special 

concern under Rules 101 .0003, .0004, 

and .0005 of this Chapter; bear or wild 

turkey. 

(e) Reporting Requirements. Any landholder 

who kills a deer, bear or wild turkey under a 

currently valid depredation permit shall report such 

kill on the form provided with the permit and mail 

the form immediately upon the expiration date to 

the Wildlife Resources Commission. The killing 

and method of disposition of ev e r)' gam e animal 

and gam e bird, e very furb e aring animal, and e v e ry 

nongam e animal or nongam e bird for which there 

is no open season, wh e n kill e d for committing 

depredations to prop e rty, e ith e r with or without a 

p e rmit, shall b e r e port e d to the Wildlife R e sourc e s 

Commission within 2 4 hours following th e time of 

such lulling, except that wh e n th e carcass or p e lt 

of a fox, kill e d und e r a d e predation permit, or of 

a furbearing animal, killed with or without a 

permit, is lawfully sold to a lic e ns e d fur deal e r in 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1903 



PROPOSED RULES 



thin Stat e tho fur d e al e r is r e quired to r e port the 
souroe of acquisition and no r e port is requir e d of 
th e s eller. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-273; 
113-274; 113-291.4; 113-291.6; 113-300.1; 
113-300.2; 113-307; 113-331; 113-333; 
113-334(a); 113-337. 

SUBCHAPTER 10F - MOTORBOATS 
AND WATER SAFETY 

SECTION .0300 - LOCAL WATER 
SAFETY REGULATIONS 

.0354 PITT COUNTY 

(a) Regulated Areas. This Rule applies to the 
waters described in this Paragraph: 

(1) The entire inlet of Hardee Creek from 
the Tar River in Pitt County. 

(2) That portion of th e Tar River b e ginn iflg 
at th e curv e approaohing Sein e B e ach to 
th e East sid e of the Grim e sland Bridg e 
as mark e d at each end by appropriate 
mark e rs. The Seine Beach area of the 
Tar River beginning at Chicod Creek 
and extending to the east side of the 
Grimesland Bridge as marked by 
appropriate markers. 

(b) Speed Limit. No person shall operate a 
motorboat or vessel at greater than no-wake speed 
within the regulated areas described in Paragraph 
(a) of this Rule. 

(c) Placement and Maintenance of Markers. 
The Board of Commissioners of Pitt County is 
designated a suitable agency for placement and 
maintenance of markers implementing this Rule. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 75A-3; 75A-15. 

TITLE 18 - SECRETARY OF 
STATE 

iSotice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 
150B-21.2 that the N. C. Department of the Secre- 
tary of State intends to amend rules cited as 18 
NCAC6 .1201 and .1210. 

1 he proposed effective date of this action is May 
1. 1995. 

1 he public hearing will be conducted at 10:00 
a.m. on March 2, 1995 at the Legislative Office 



Building, 300 N. Salisbury St. , Suite 100, Confer- 
ence Room, Raleigh, NC 27603. 

Ixeason for Proposed Action: To facilitate greater 
investment opportunities for North Carolina inves- 
tors. 

Lsomment Procedures: Interested persons may 
present oral or written statements at the public 
hearing, or in writing prior to the hearing by mail 
addressed to Mr. Gene Cella, Administrator, 
Securities Division, N. C. Dept. of the Secretary of 
State, 300 N. Salisbury St. , Raleigh, NC 27603. 
For copies of any information relating to the 
hearing call (919) 733-3924, or write to the 
aforementioned address. The comment period will 
end on March 17, 1995. 

CHAPTER 6 - SECURITIES DIVISION 

SECTION .1200 - EXEMPTIONS 

.1201 DESIGNATED SECURTTTES 
EXCHANGES 

The national securities exchanges designated by 
the administrator for the purposes of G.S. 
78A-16(8) shall be: 

(1) New York Stock Exchange, 

(2) American Stock Exchange, 

(3) Midwest Stock Exchange, 

(4) Pacific Stock Exchange^ 

(5) Philadelphia Stock Exchange. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 78A-16(8). 

.1210 SECURITIES EXCHGS/AUTO 
QUOTATION SYS APPROVED/ 
ADMINISTRATOR 

For purposes of G.S. 78A-16(15), the following 
securities exchanges and automated quotation 
systems are approved provided such exchanges or 
systems comply with the provisions of Paragraphs 
(1) through (4) of the Memorandum of 
Understanding regarding a Model Uniform 
Marketplace Exemption From State Securities 
Registration Requirements [SEC Release 33-6810 
(December 16, 1988), CCH NASAA Reports, par. 
11,120] or the Memorandum of Understanding 
between The North American Securities 
Administrators Association, Inc. and The 
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., incorporated 
herein by reference. The incorporated material 



may be obtained, free of charge, from the North 
Carolina Secretary of State, Securities Division, 



1904 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



30 North Salisbury Street, Suite 100, Raleigh, 
orth Carolina 27603-5909 : 

(1) New York Stock Exchange, 

(2) American Stock Exchange, 

(3) Pacific Stock Exchange, 

(4) Midwest Stock Exchange, 

(5) NASDAQ National Market System, and 

(6) Chicago Board Options Exchange^ and 

(7) Philadelphia Stock Exchange. 

tatutory Authority G.S. 78A-16(15); 150B-21.6. 

TITLE 21 - OCCUPATIONAL 
LICENSING BOARD 

:HAPTER 2 - BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE 



Sotice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 
50B-21.2 that the North Carolina Board of 
rchitecture intends to amend rules cited as 21 
1CAC 2 .0101, .0108, .0201 - .0202, .0204 - 
1206, .0208 - .0210, .0212, .0215 - .0216, .0302 
.0303, .0402, .0405, .0603; adopt 21 NCAC 2 
0218 - .0219; repeal 21 NCAC 2 .0103 - .0105, 
9207 and .0602. 

p 

he proposed effective date of this action is June 

, 1995. 

n 
he public hearing will be conducted at 9:00 

m. on March 22, 1995 at the Methodist Build- 
ig, 1307 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27605. 

xeason for Proposed Action: 

1 NCAC 2 .0101 - Need to relocate office. 

1 NCAC 2 .0103 - Rule is duplicative of statute. 

G.S. 83A-2) 

I NCAC 2 .0104 - Rule is duplicative of statute. 
G.S. 83A-5) 

'1 NCAC 2 .0105 - Rule is duplicative of statute. 

G.S. 83A-14) 

\1 NCAC 2 .0108 - Sets out current applicable 

ees for Board services. 

M NCAC 2 .0201 - Sets out requirements for 

vritten notice of firm or address changes. 

\1 NCAC 2 .0202 - Requires licensees to affirm 

hey have read current architectural laws and 

Tiles. 

II NCAC 2 .0204 - Provides for inclusion of 
imited liability companies and partnerships in 
llowable forms of practice. 

U NCAC 2 .0205 - Provides language to include 



limited liability companies and partnerships. 
21 NCAC 2 . 0206 - Clarifies the requirements and 
guidelines for use of the architectural seal. 
21 NCAC 2 .0207 - Rule is duplicative of statute. 
(G.S. 83A-15) 

21 NCAC 2 .0208 - Defines dishonest conduct. 
21 NCAC 2 .0209 - Defines unprofessional con- 
duct. 

21 NCAC 2 . 0210 - Defines incompetent conduct. 
21 NCAC 2 .0212 - Defines certain types of 
conflicts of interest. 

21 NCAC 2 .0215 - Prohibits foreign corporations 
from evading registration requirements by practic- 
ing through an individual license. 
21 NCAC 2 .0216 - Requires a limited liability 
partnership to annually submit a list of partners. 
21 NCAC 2 .0218 - Establishes the requirements 
necessary to practice as a limited liability compa- 
ny. 

21 NCAC 2 .0219 - Establishes the requirements 
necessary to practice as a limited liability partner- 
ship. 

21 NCAC 2 .0302 - Clarifies and extends the 
opportunity for exam applicants qualified under 
prior rules to sit for the exam. 
21 NCAC 2 .0303 - Provides for alternative means 
of obtaining reciprocal registration. 
21 NCAC 2 .0402 - Change Statutory reference 
within Rule. 

21 NCAC 2 .0405 - Removes language stating a 
requirement already covered by statute. 
21 NCAC 2 .0602 - Rule is duplicative of statute. 
21 NCAC 2 .0603 - Clarifies who may request a 
hearing. 

Lsomment Procedures: Any person interested in 
these rules may present oral comments relevant to 
the action proposed at the public rule-making 
hearing or deliver written comments to the Board 
office not later than Wednesday, March 22, 1995. 
Anyone planning to attend the hearing should 
notify the Board office by noon Friday, March 17, 
1995 whether they wish to speak on the proposals. 
Speakers will be limited to 5 minutes. 

SECTION .0100 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 

.0101 AUTHORITY: NAME AND 
LOCATION OF BOARD 

The "North Carolina Board of Architecture," 
subsequently herein referred to as the "Board," is 
established and authorized by Chapter 83A of the 
General Statutes of North Carolina. Unless other- 
wise directed, all communications should be 



h22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1905 



PROPOSED RULES 



addressed to the Board at 501 North Blount Str ee t, 
Ral e igh, North Carolina 2760 4 127 West Hargett 
Street, Suite 304, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 . 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-2; 83A-6. 

.0103 DUTIES OF OFFICERS 

(a) — Pr e sid e nt. — Th e president ohall, wh e n pr e s 
e nt, pr e sid e at all m e etings, appoint all oommit 
te os , s ign all c e rtificates issu e d and perform all 
oth e r duties p e rtaining to his offic e . 

{&) — Vic e Pr es id e nt. — Th e vic e presid e nt, in th e 
absence of the pr e sid e nt, shall p e rform ail of th e 
duties of the presid e nt. 

(o) S e or e tary, — Th e s e cr e tary, with th e assistanc e 



of an e xecutiv e dir e ctor, shall: 

(4^ conduct and car e for all th e oorr e spon 

deno e of th e Board, k e ep th e minutes of 
all the m e etings, k ee p all books and 
records, and shall also sign all c e rtifi 
eatos issued; 

{3} have charge, oar e and custody of the 

official — docum e nts — by — ord e r — ef- — the 
Board; 

{£) provid e — due notice — of th e tim e and 

plac e of all m ee tings of th e Board to 
e ach m e mber of th e Board; 

f4) k ee p a r e cord of the proceedings of th e 

Board and r e gistration for all applicants 
for r e gistration and admission to prao 
tic e archit e ctur e , giving th e nam e and 
looation of th e institution or plac e of 
training wh e r e th e applicant was pr e 
par e d for th e practic e of archit e ctur e , 
and such oth e r information as th e Board 

may d ee m proper and us e ful. This 

r e gistration shall b e prima faci e evi 
d e no e of all matt e rs r e cord e d th e r e in; 

{&) mail a copy of "Chapter 83A Archi 

t e cts" of th e North Carolina Gen e ral 
Statutes and the rules of th e Board to 
each archit e ct licens e d with th e Board. 
(d) — Treasur e r. — With th e assistanc e of an ex e ou 
tiv e dir e ctor, th e tr e asur e r shall: 



<4^ 



-eH- 



fef 



r e c e iv e all monies from archit e ct 
annual r e n e wal or other fees and d e pos 
it them in an authorized d e pository of 
th e Board; 

(3) giv e bond in such sums as th e Board 

shall d e t e rmin e , with suoh s e curity as 
shall b e approv e d by th e Board, said 
bond to b e condition e d on th e faithful 
p e rformanc e of th e duti e s of th e offic e , 
and on th e faithful accounting of all 
moni e s and other prop e rty. 



Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-2; 83A-3; 83A-5, 
83A-6. 

.0104 PROCEDURE 

(a) — Ord e r of Busin es s. — The President shall 



determin e th e g e n e ral order of busin e ss to b e 



followed at e aoh m ee ting of the Board and ohal l 



g e n e rally follow th e Rules of Parliam e ntary Procc 
(b) — Books and R e cords. — Th e following record s 



shall b e k e pt in th e Board offic e und e r the roopon 
sibl e charge of th e e x e cutiv e dir e ctor and conoti 



tute th e official records of th e Board: 

fB Minutes and Reports. — Th e r e will be a 



book containing all minut e s and offioia l 



m- 



r e ports in proper order; 

Other Documents. Other documents 



will be filed and arrang e d so ao to 



prop e rly car e for applicants' papers. 



bills and r e c e ipts, general eorrespon 
donoo, mat e rial conc e rning th e laws and 



proc e dur e of oth e r stat e s and all other 



papers whioh ar e to be t e mporarily or 
p e rman e ntly pres e rv e d. 

Statutory Authority G. S. 83A-5; 83A-6. 

.0105 DISCD7LINARY ACTION AND 
PROCEDURE 

Th e proc e dur e to b e follow e d in conducting 



disciplinary actions shall b e in aooord with G.S 
8 3 A 1 4 and Chapter 150B of th e North Carolina 
General Statutes. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83-14. 

.0108 FEES 

Fees required by the Board, are payable in 
advance and are set forth below: 



Initial Registration Application 






Individual 






Residents 




$50.00 


Nonresidents 




S 50.00 


Corporate 




$75.00 


Examination At Cost (See 


Rule .0301) 


Initial Exam Application 




$50.00 


Re-examination 


$25.00 


Annual license renewal 






Individual 




$50.00 


Corporate 




$100.00 


Late renewal Penalty 




$ 50.00 


Reciprocal registration 




$150.00 


Individual Reinstatement (prior 


year's 




renewal and late fees plus current 





1906 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



renewal fee) 



$250.00 



Copies of the roster and other publications and 
services provided by the Board are available at 
cost from the Board office. 

Statutory Authority G. S. 83A-4. 

SECTION .0200 - PRACTICE OF 
ARCHITECTURE 

.0201 BOARD LISTING OF 

INDrVIDUAL AND FORM NAMES 

Every individual licensee, partnership, firm or 
corporation has the continuing responsibility of 
keeping the Board currently advised of his or its 
proper and current mailing address and the name 
or names under which he or it is practicing. Each 
licensee or firm shall immediately notify the Board 
in writing of any and all changes of association or 



address. Upon the dissolution of a professional 
relationship, the architect member or members 
thereof shall promptly notify the Board in writing 
concerning such dissolution, and of the succeeding 
status and addresses of the individual or firm. 
rhis requirement is in addition to registration, 
isting and renewal requirements set out elsewhere 



in these Rules. 



Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-5; 83A-6. 

0202 APPLICABDLITY OF BOARD 
RULES 

The Executive Director shall mail a copy of 
Chapter 83A of the North Carolina General Stat- 
utes and the rules of the Board adopted hereunder 
to each licensed architect in and out of the state to 
whom a new license has been issued, by virtue of 
laving successfully completed the prescribed 
sxamination and having otherwise met the Board's 
equirements for registration. Rules adopted and 
jublished by the Board under the provisions of 
Chapter 83A and Chapter 150B shall be binding 
ipon every individual holding a license from the 
Board, and upon all professional corporations 
egally authorized to offer or to perform architec- 
tural services in this state. All licensees of the 
Board are charged with having knowledge of the 
sustence of the Board rules and shall be deemed 
o be familiar with their several provisions and to 
mderstand them. Each licensed person and entity 
shall affirm in their renewals that they have read 
he current architectural laws and rules. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6. 



.0204 FORMS OF PRACTICE 

The practice of architecture may be carried on by 
sole practitioners, partnerships, professional 
limited liability companies, registered limited 
liability partnerships or registered architectural 
corporations, provided all those who practice are 
duly licensed, and the firm is properly described 
and identified by its name or title. Whenever the 
practice of architecture is carried on by a partner- 
ship, all partners must be duly licensed in North 
Carolina . 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-4; 83A-6; 83A-8; 
57C-2-01; 59-84.2; 59-84.3. 

.0205 NAME OF FIRM 

(a) A licensee shall not engage in the practice of 
architecture under a professional or firm name 
which is misleading or deceptive in any way as to 
the legal form of the firm or the persons who are 
partners, officers, members, or shareholders in the 
firm. Examples of misleading or deceptive firm 
names include but are not limited to the following: 

(1) Use of the plural in any form when the 
number of architects in a firm does not 
warrant such use or, 

(2) Use of the name of an employee unless 
that employee is a partner, member or 
shareholder or, 

(3) Use of the name of deceased architect 
in order to benefit from his reputation, 
when that architect was not a former 
partner, officer, member or shareholder 
in the present firm, or 

(4) Use of a name which is deceptively 
similar to that of existing firm name. 

(b) Names of all architectural firms, whether 
sole proprietorships, partnerships, professional 
limited liability companies, registered limited 
liability partnerships or professional corporations, 
shall be approved in writing by the Board before 
adopted or used by such firm. Provided, however, 
that this Rule shall not be construed to require any 
firm to seek approval of, or to change, any name 
duly adopted in conformity with Board rules in 
effect at the date of such adoption other than a 
change that results in a violation of Subparagraph 
fa) (1) of this Rule . 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-9; 83A-12; 
55B-5. 

.0206 REQUIREMENT FOR AND USE 
OF PROFESSIONAL SEAL 



h22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1907 



PROPOSED RULES 



(a) As more fully set out in this Rule, an 
architect must seal his work whether or not the 
work is for an exempt project. An architect shall 
not sign nor seal drawings, specifications, reports 
or other professional work which were not pre- 
pared by the architect or under his direct supervi- 
sion; provided, however, that in the case of the 
portions of such professional work prepared under 
the direct supervision of persons employed by the 
architect or the architect's firm and who are (4)(d) 

registered in this state, the architect may sign and 
seal those portions of the professional work if the 
architect has reviewed such portions and has 
coordinated their preparation. "Direct supervision" 
shall be that degree of supervision by a person 
overseeing the work of another whereby the 
supervisor has control over and detailed knowledge 
of the work prepared under his supervision. 
(_Q(a) Individual Seal Design. Every licensed 
architect shall have an individual seal 
which shall be composed of two con- 
centric circles with outer and inner 
circle diameters of approximately VA 
inches and 1 inch respectively. The 
architect's name and place of business 
shall be between the inner and outer 
circles. The words "Registered Archi- 
tect, North Carolina" shall be along the 
inside perimeter of the inner circle. 
The architect's North Carolina registra- 
tion number shall be in the center of the 
inner circle. (5)(«) 

{2}(b) Corporate Seal Design. Every corpora- 
tion which shall have obtained from the 
Board a certificate for corporate prac- 
tice shall have a corporate seal, which 
shall be composed of two concentric (6)(f) 

circles with outer and inner circle diam- 
eters of approximately 1 Vi inches and 1 
inch respectively. The Architectural 
Corporation's approved North Carolina 
name and place of business shall be 
between the inner and outer circles. 
The words "Registered Architectural 
Corporation, North Carolina" shall be 
along the inside perimeter of the inner 
circle. The corporation's North Caroli- (l)(s) 

na registration number shall be in the 
center of the inner circle. 
£3)(e) Seal Types. The seal required for use 
on opaque original contract documents 
not intended for duplication shall be of 
a type which will produce an impres- 
sion facsimile of the seal, or a rubber 
stamp which will produce an ink fac- 



simile of the seal. The seal required 
for use on transparent original contract 
documents intended for duplication 
shall be of a type which will produce an 
ink facsimile of the seal such as a rub 
ber stamp, d e oal, or computer generat 
ed type. The use of pre-printed docu 
ments bearing a pre-printed facsimile of 
the seal is prohibited. 
Individual Seal, Signature and Date 
Required. Architects shall affix their 
seal, actual signature, and date of affix- 
ation to all original contract documents 



including ind e x sh ee ts identifying all 
dmwingB — covered — sp e cification — cover 



and index pages identifying all opooifi 
cation pages covered and supplemental 



drawings — whioh — afe — d e veloped — aed 
issu e d und e r th e dir e ct oup e rvioion oi 



authorship of the arohitoct an contract 



dooum e nta. architectural documents to 
be filed for public record. Document; 



shall be signed personally and sealed by 



the responsible architect. Final official 
record documents (such as tracings) 



shall be so signed. The signing and 
sealing of the index sheet or sheets {ij 
it identifies all parts) of drawings and 
specifications shall be considered ade 
quate. Without such index, all sheets 



and pages shall be so signed and sealed 



Presentation Documents. Presentation 
documents (renderings, drawings usee 
to communicate conceptual information 
only) are not required to be sealed oi 
signed. 

Incomplete Documents. Documents 
considered incomplete by the architect 
may be released for interim review 
without the architect's seal or signature 
affixed, but shall be dated, bear the 
architect's name and be conspicuously 
marked to clearly indicate the docu 
ments are for interim review and not 
intended for bidding, permit, or con 
struction purposes. 

Sheets or Pages Prepared By Licensed 
Professional Consultants. Those sheets 
or pages prepared by licensed profes 
sional consultants (such as, for exam 
pie, structural, mechanical or electrical 
engineers) retained by the architect 
shall bear the seal and registration 
number of the consultant responsibl 
therefore. 



1908 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



PROPOSED RULES 



(8){f) Original Signature. The use of signa- 
ture reproductions such as rubber 
stamps or computer generated or other 
facsimiles shall not be permitted in lieu 
of actual signatures. 
(9}(j) Security of Seal. Authorized use of the 
prescribed seal is an individual act 
whereby the architect must personally 
sign over the imprint of the seal. The 
architect is responsible for security of 
the seal when not in use. 

10)(k) Use of Corporate Seal. The use of the 
corporate seal does not replace the 
statutory requirement for an architect's 
individual seal as required in Subpara- 
graph (d) (a)(4) . The corporate seal 
must be affixed in addition to the indi- 
vidual seal on the cover sheet and each 
page of the table of contents of specifi- 
cations and drawings. 
(b) Standard Design Documents. Standard 

design documents prepared by architects who are 



registered in this state or in their state of origin 



may be sealed by a succeeding licensed architect 
registered in North Carolina provided: 

(1) the seal of the original architect appears 
on the documents to authenticate au- 
thorship; 

(2) the words "standard design document" 
appear on each sheet of the documents 
prepared by the original architect; 

(3) the succeeding North Carolina architect 
clearly identifies all modifications to the 
standard design documents; 

(4) the succeeding North Carolina architect 
assumes responsibility for the adequacy 
of the design for the specific application 
in North Carolina and for the design 
conforming with applicable building 
codes; and 

(5) the succeeding North Carolina architect 
affixes his seal to the standard design 
documents and a statement substantially 
as follows: "These documents have 
been properly examined by the under- 
signed. I have determined that they 
comply with existing local North Caro- 
lina codes, and I assume responsibility 
for the adequacy of the design for the 
specific application in North Carolina." 

(c}{fe) Direct Supervision. No architect shall 
iffix his seal and signature to contract documents 
ieveloped by others not under his direct supervi- 
sion. Direct supervision includes: 

(1) Dissemination of programmatic re- 



quirements, 

(2) Ongoing coordination and correlation of 
consultant's work services with other 
aspects of the total design of the pro- 
ject, 

(3) Verification with consultant that 
owner's requirements are being met, 

(4) Authority over the work services of 
those who assisted in the preparation of 
the documents, 

(5) Assumption of responsibility for the 
consultant's work, services, and 

(6) Incorporation of con s ultant' s — work 
services into design documents to be 
issued for permitting purposes. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-10; 83A-12. 

.0207 DENIAL: SUSPENSION OR 
REVOCATION OF LICENSE 

(a) D e nial. — Th e Board may r e fu s e to grant an 
e xamination, or aft e r examination r e fus e to grant 



a lic e ns e for th e practic e of archit e ctur e , to any 
person convict e d of a f e lony, — or who, — in th e 
opinion of the Board, has b e en guilty of di s hon es t 
or unprofessional conduct, or lacks good moral 
charact e r as defin e d in G.S. 8 3 A 1(5). 

{&) — Disciplin e Aff e cting Lic e ns e . — Th e Board 
may l e vy a civil p e nalty, r e primand, suspend for 
a — p e riod — ef- — tim e , — ef — reveke — any — corporat e 
c e rtificat e of r e gi s tration or di s ciplin e a lic e n see 
pursuant to G.S. 8 3 A 15. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-1; 83A-6; 83A-7; 
83A-15. 

.0208 DISHONEST CONDUCT 

In addition to tho se ground s a s s tat e d in G.S. 
8 3 A 15(1) th e following act s or omi ss ion s , among 
oth e rs, may b e d e emed to b e "dishon e st conduct" 
and to b e caus e for th e l e vy of a civil penalty or 
for a d e nial, suspension, or revocation of a lic e ns e 

ef c e rtificat e ef- — r e gi s tration te practic e 

architectur e : 

fB D e c e itful Stat e m e nts. — It s hall be deemed 

di s hon e st conduct to — mak e untru e or 

dec e itful statem e nts in an application for 

e xamination, any oth e r application to th e 

Board — ef — m — any — stat e m e nts — ef 

r e pr ese ntation s — te — the — Board — ef — a 

committ e e of th e Board. 

(a) Deception. An architect shall not 

deliberately make a materially false statement or 

fail deliberately to disclose a material fact 

requested in connection with his application for 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1909 



PROPOSED RULES 



registration renewal. 
(b) Contributions, 
offer nor make any 



An architect shall neither 
gifts, other than gifts of 



nominal value (including, for example, reasonable 
entertainment and hospitality), with the intent of 
influencing the judgement of an existing or 
prospective client in connection with a project in 
which the architect is interested. 

(c) Registration of Others. An architect shall 
not assist the application for registration of a 
person known by the architect to be unqualified 
with respect to education, training, experience, or 
character. 

(d) Knowledge of Violation. An architect 
possessing knowledge of a violation of these Rules 
by another architect shall report such knowledge to 
the Board. 

(3) Misrepres e ntation. — It shall b e d e em e d 

dishonest conduct for an archit e ct — to 
permit the us e of his professional s e al by 
oth e rs, or otherwise repres e nt hims e lf as 
th e author of drawings or specifications 
which are not personally prepar e d by him 

ef und e r his dir e ct sup e rvision. 

How e v e r, — "standard d e sign documents" 
pr e par e d by archit e cts who ar e r e gist e r e d 
in this stat e or in th e ir state of origin may 
be — s ealed — by — a — succ ee ding — lic e ns e d 
architect — regist e r e d — in North — Carolina 
provid e d: 

{a) th e s e al of the original archit e ct appear s 

en — the — dooum e nts — te — auth e nticat e 
authorship; 

<+H th e words " s tandard d e sign docum e nt" 

app e ar on e ach sh e et of the docum e nts 
pr e par e d by the original architect; 

{e} th e succe e ding North Carolina archit e ct 

cl e arly id e ntifi es all modification s to th e 
standard d e sign docum e nts; 

{d) the succeeding North Carolina archit e ct 

assumes responsibility for th e ad e quacy 
of th e de s ign for th e sp e cific application 
in North Carolina and for th e d e sign 
conformi ng — with — applicabl e — building 
cod e s; and 

the succ ee ding North Carolina archit e ct 
affix e s his s e al to th e standard design 
dooum e nts and a s tat e m e nt substantially 



&- 



-feik 



"Th ese docum e nts hav e 



been prop e rly e xamin e d — by — the 

und e rsign e d. 1 hav e det e rmin e d that 

th e y comply with existing local North 

Carolina codes. and 1 assum e 

r e sponsibility for th e ad e quacy of th e 
design for th e sp e cific application in 



m- 



North Carolina." 
Contributions. 



4t — shall — be — dee»e< 



dishonest conduct — for an architect t < 



mak e or promis e to make contributions o 



mon e y — or servic e , — with the intent h 



bribe, — for th e purpose of securing i 
commission e-F — influencing — tt 



e ngag e ment — er — e mployment — ef- — ai 
archit e ct for a project. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-15. 

.0209 UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 

In addition to those grounds as stated in G.S 
83A-15(3) the following acts or omissions, amonj 
others, may be deemed to be "unprofessiona 
conduct", and to be cause for the levy of a civi 
penalty or for denial, suspension, or revocation o 
a license or certificate of registration to practice 
architecture: 

(1) Compliance With Laws. It shall b< 
deemed unprofessional conduct for ai 
architect, in the conduct of his or he 
professional practice, to knowingl; 
violate any state or federal criminal law 
A criminal conviction shall be deeme< 
prima facie evidence of knowingl) 
violating the law. 

(2) Compliance With Foreign Registration 
It shall be deemed unprofessional conduc 
for an architect to knowingly violate the 
laws governing the practice 
architecture or the rules promulgated bj 
any other architectural licensing board ii 
any United States jurisdiction. A findin 
by a foreign architectural registratio 
board that an architect has violated a law 
or rule governing the practice o 
architecture shall be deemed prima faci 
evidence of knowingly violating the law 
or rule. 

(3) Product Specification. It shall be deeme< 
unprofessional conduct for an architect tc 
solicit or accept financial or othe: 
valuable consideration from material o 
equipment suppliers for specifying thei 
products. 

(4) Advertising. It shall be deemec 
unprofessional conduct for an architect tc 
engage in any false, deceptive 
fraudulent, or misleading advertising. 

(5) False Statements. It shall be deemec 
unprofessional conduct for an architect U 
knowingly make false statements abou 
the professional work or to malicious!) 



1910 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:2. 



PROPOSED RULES 



injure the prospects, practice, or 
employment position of others active in 
the design and construction of the 
physical environment. 

(6) Evasion. 

(a) It shall be deemed unprofessional 
conduct for an architect, through 
employment by building contractors, or 
by another not holding an individual or 
corporate certificate from the Board, to 
enable the employer to offer or perform 
architectural services, except as 
provided in G.S. 83A-13. In 
design/build arrangements, the architect 
shall not be an employee of a person or 
firm not registered or licensed to 
practice architecture in North Carolina. 

(b) It shall be deemed unprofessional 
conduct for an architect to furnish 
limited services in such manner as to 
enable owners, draftsmen, or others to 
evade the public health and safety 
requirements of Chapter 83A or th e 
building p e rmit r e quir e m e nts of Chapt e r 
160A of th e North Carolina Gen e ral 
Statut e s. G.S. 133-2, G.S. 153A-26 or 
G.S. 160A-417. 

(c) When building plans are begun or 
contracted for by persons not properly 
licensed and qualified, it shall be 
deemed unprofessional conduct for an 
architect to take over, review, revise, 
or sign or seal such drawings or 
revisions thereof for such persons, or 
do any act to enable either such persons 
or the project owners, directly or 
indirectly, to evade the requirements of 
Chapter 83A or G.S. 160A-417. 

(7) Branch Office. U — sbaH — be — d ee m e d 
unprofessional conduct for an architect to 
maintain or r e pr e s e nt by sign, li s ting, or 
oth e r mann e r that h e maintains an arohi 
t e otural offic e or branch offio e unless 
suoh offic e is continuously staffed with a 
r e gistered arohit e ot in oharge. — Provid e d, 
however, that this Rul e does not apply to 
on site project offioes during oonstruo 
tion. Each office maintained for the 
preparation of drawings, specifications, 
reports, or other professional work shall 
have an architect resident and regularly 
employed in that office having direct 
knowledge and supervisory control of 
such work. 

) Misrepresentation Regarding Prior Expe- 



rience. Becaus e of the rolianoo th e pub 
lie plao e s on archit e cts' qualifications, the 
following — requirements — afe — provid e d 
r e garding th e r e pr e s e ntation of pa s t pro 
f e ssional e xp e ri e nc e . An architect shall 
accurately represent to a prospective or 
existing client or employer his qualifica- 
tions and the scope of his responsibility 
in connection with work for which he is 
claiming credit. 

(a) It shall be the responsibility of each 
registered architect to clearly and ap- 
propriately state prior professional 
experience of the architect and/or the 
firm the architect is representing in 
presenting qualifications to prospective 
clients, both public and private. If an 
architect uses visual representations of 
prior projects or experience, all 
architects-of-record must be clearly 
identified. Architect-of-record means 
persons or entities whose seals appear 
on plans, specifications and/or contract 
documents. 

(b) An architect who has been an employee 
of another architectural practice may 
not claim unconditional credit for pro- 
jects contracted for in the name of the 
previous employer. The architect shall 
indicate, next to the listing for each 
project, that individual experience 
gained in connection with the project 
was acquired as an employee, and 
identify the previous architectural firm. 
The architect shall also describe the 
nature and extent of his/her participa- 
tion in the project. 

(c) An architect who was formerly a princi- 
pal in a firm may legitimately make 
additional claims provided he/she dis- 
closes the nature of ownership in the 
previous architectural firm (e.g. stock- 
holder or junior partner) and identifies 
with specificity his/her responsibilities 
for that project. 

(d) An architect who presents a project that 
has received awards recognition must 
comply with the requirements in Sub- 
paragraph (8) of this Rule with regard 
to project presentation to the public and 
prospective clients. 

(e) Projects which remain unconstructed 
and which are listed as credits should 
be listed as "unbuilt or a similar desig- 
nation. 



22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1911 



PROPOSED RULES 



(9) Influencing Government Officials. An 
architect shall neither offer nor make any 
payment or gift to a government official 
(whether elected or appointed) with the 
intent of influencing the official's 
judgment in connection with a 
prospective or existing project in which 
the architect is interested, 

(10) Fee Bidding on Public Projects. An 
architect shall not knowingly cooperate in 
a violation of any provisions of G.S. 143- 
64.31. 

(11) Cooperation with Board. An architect 
shall fully cooperate with the Board in 
connection with any inquiry it shall make. 
Full cooperation includes responding in a 
timely manner to all inquiries of the Board 
or representative of the Board and 
claiming Board correspondence from the 
U.S. Postal Service. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-15. 

.0210 INCOMPETENCE 

Any archit e ct who has suffer e d impairm e nt of 
skill and oar e in r e nd e ring prof e ssional s e rvic e s 
du e to a m e ntal or physical disability or addiction 
to alcohol or drugs so as to pot e ntially e ndang e r 
the health, saf e ty and welfare of th e public - may 
voluntarily surr e nd e r his lic e ns e to th e Board at 
any tim e prior to a filing of a Notic e of Hearing in 
a cont e sted cas e . — Th e Board, in its discr e tion, 
may acc e pt th e surr e nd e r, or r e j e ct th e surr e nd e r 
and prooood to a Notic e of H e aring under the 
provisions of Chapt e r 150B. 

(a) In practicing architecture, an architect shall 
act with reasonable care and competence and shall 
apply the technical knowledge and skill which is 
ordinarily applied by architects of good standing, 
practicing in the same locality. 

(b) In designing a project, an architect shall take 
into account all applicable state and municipal 
building laws and regulations. While an architect 
may rely on the advice of other professionals 
(e.g., attorneys, engineers and other qualified 
persons) as to the intent and meaning of such 
regulations, once having obtained such advice, an 
architect shall not knowingly design a project in 
violation of such laws and regulations. 

(c) An architect shall undertake to perform 
professional services only when he, together with 
those whom the architect may engage as 



consultants, are qualified by education, training 
and experience in the specific technical areas 
involved. 



(d) No person shall be permitted to practk 
architecture, if, in the board's judgment. su< 
person's professional competence is substantial 



impaired by physical or mental disabilities. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-15. 

.0212 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT 
AND DISCLOSURE 

Upon r e o e ipt of information or complaint, tt 



Board, — m — its — discretion, — may — inv es tigate ai 



incid e nce of th e all e ged prohibited praotio o- 



archit e ctur e — in North — Carolina by — individual 
firm s — ef — corporations — net — duly — lic e ns e d ■ 



r e gi s tered — by — the — Board. Following — sw 



inv e stigation, th e Board shall determin e whether 



net — te — take — legal — action — by — way — of crimin 
pro se cution or injunction or such oth e r action as 



d e ems n e c e ssary to prev e nt the unlic e ns e d practk 
of archit e ctur e . 
(a) When acting as the interpreter of buildii 



contract documents and the judge of contra 



performance, an architect shall render decisioi 



impartially, favoring neither party to the contract 



(b) If, in the course of his work on a project. 



architect becomes aware of a decision taken by h 
employer or client, against the architect's advici 



which violates applicable state or municip; 



building laws and regulations and which will, 
the architect's judgment, materially affe< 



adversely the safety to the public of the finishe 
project, the architect shall: 

(1) report the decision to the local buildin 
inspector or other public offici 



12} 
£3} 



charged with the enforcement of tl 

applicable state or municipal buildin 

laws and regulations; 

refuse to consent to the decision; 

in circumstances where the archite< 



reasonably believes that other sue 
decisions will be taken notwithstandin 



his objection, terminate his service 



(4} 



with reference to the project; and 
in the case of termination in accordanc 



with clause in Subparagraph (b)(3) ( 
this Rule, the architect shall have n 
liability to his client or employer o 
account of such termination. 



(c) If an architect has any business associatio 



or direct or indirect financial interest which i 
substantial enough to influence his judgment i 
connection with the performance of profession. 
services, the architect shall fully disclose i 
writing to his client or employer the nature of th 
business association or financial interest, and if th 



1912 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:2 



eing compensated for making such statements. 
tatutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-15. 

D215 FOREIGN CORPORATIONS 

(a) Incorporation in Other States. Architectural 
orporations of other states may be granted 
orporate certificates for practice in this State on 
le receipt by the Board of a completed 
pplication, the submission of a certified copy of 
leir corporate charter, amended as may be 
ecessary to insure full compliance with all 
squirements of Chapter 55B, the Professional 
lorporation Act of the State of North Carolina, 
nd the payment of the corporate application fee. 
a addition to the other requirements as set out in 
i.S. 83A-8, foreign corporations must, prior to 
sgistration, receive from the Secretary of State of 
forth Carolina a certificate of authority to do 
usiness within the state. The registration 
squirements for foreign corporations cannot be 



PROPOSED RULES 



lient or employer objects to such association or 
nancial interest, the architect will either terminate 
uch association or interest or offer to give up the 
ommission or employment. 



(d) An architect making public statements on 
rchitectural questions shall disclose when he is 



voided by practice in North Carolina through an 
idividual licensee. 

(b) Designated Individuals. Foreign 

orporations shall be permitted to practice 
rchitecture within the State of North Carolina 
rovided that at least two-thirds of the issued and 
utstanding shares of the foreign corporations are 
wned by licensed architects or engineers who are 
censed to practice their profession in a 
lrisdiction of the United States. However, the 
orporation must designate at least one architect 
/ho is licensed in the State of North Carolina to 
e in responsible charge for the corporate practice 
f architecture within the State of North Carolina. 

'tatutory Authority G.S. 55B-6; 83A-6; 83A-8. 

0216 ANNUAL LISTING OF 
PARTNERSHIP 

(a) By December 31 of each year, each 
artnership or registered limited liability 
lartnership engaged in the practice of architecture 



n North Carolina shall submit a list of all resident 
nd non-resident partners of the partnership, 
(b) One annual listing by a representative of the 
partnership shall satisfy the requirements of 
■aragraph (a) of this Rule for all partners of the 
inn; however, each partner shall remain 



responsible for compliance with the rules. 

(c) Changes in the information required by 
Paragraph (a) of this Rule shall be filed with the 
Board office within 30 days after the change 
occurs. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-9. 

.0218 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES 

Architects may practice in this state through duly 
authorized limited liability companies only as 
provided under G.S. 57C-2-01(c). Any limited 
liability company that offers to practice or 
practices architecture in this state must comply 
with the same requirements applicable to 
professional corporations under Rules .0201, 
.0202, .0204, .0205, .0214. and .0215 of this 
Chapter. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 57C-2-01; 83A-6. 

.0219 REGISTERED LIMITED 

LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS 

Architects may practice in this state through duly 
registered limited liability partnerships only as 
provided under G.S. 59-84.2 and G.S. 59-84.3. 
Any registered limited liability partnership that 
offers to practice or practices architecture in this 
state must comply with the same requirements 
applicable to partnerships under Rules .0201, 
.0202, .0204, .0205, and .0216 of this Chapter. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 59-84.2; 59-84.3. 

SECTION .0300 - EXAMINATION 
PROCEDURES 

.0302 WRITTEN EXAMINATION 

(a) Licensure Examination. All applicants for 
architectural registration in North Carolina by 
written examination must pass the Architectural 
Registration Examination (ARE), administered in 
North Carolina, prepared by the National Council 
of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). 
Provided, applicants who have never been 
registered in any state or territory may transfer 
credits for portions of the examination previously 
passed in another state if at the time of taking the 
exam elsewhere they otherwise qualified for taking 
the exam in North Carolina. 

(1) Description. The nature of the 
examination is to place the candidate in 
areas relating to actual architectural 
situations whereby his abilities to 
exercise competent value judgements 



K-22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1913 



PROPOSED RULES 



(2) 



will be tested and evaluated. 
Qualifications. The prequalifications 
necessary for an applicant's admission 
to the Architectural Registration 
examination (ARE) are as follows: 

(A) be of good moral character as defined 
in North Carolina General Statute 
83A-K5); 

(B) be at least 18 years of age; 

(C) hold a degree in architecture from a 
college or university where the degree 
program has been approved by the 
Board, or professional education 
equivalents as outlined and defined in 
the North Carolina Board of 
Architecture's Table of Equivalents 
for Education and Experience, 
Appendix A. Beginning July 1, 1991, 
the professional education 
qualification shall be a NAAB 
(National Architectural Accrediting 
Board) accredited professional degree 
in architecture; provided that an 
applicant whose education equivalents 
otherwise qualified under the Board's 
rules in effect prior to 1989 may 
apply for admission to the 
Architectural Registration 
Examination. However, an applicant 
who does not hold a NAAB 
accredited professional degree may 
not accumulate more than three and 
one half years of education credits in 
the aggregate from all degree 
programs in which he was enrolled. 
Further provided, the applicant must 
file with the Board by December 31, 
1991, a notice of intent to sit for the 
examination on or before June 30, 
1995; 

not withstanding the forgoing 
provisions of Part (a)(2)(C) of this 
Rule, the Board, in its discretion, may 
admit to the ARE an applicant whose 
educational equivalents otherwise 
qualified under the Board's rules in 
effect prior to 1989 and who has 
demonstrated a continuing intention to 
seek licensure in North Carolina by: 

obtaining, prior to 1989, a four- 
year degree in architecture from a 
NAAB-accredited university in 
North Carolina; 

obtaining the practical training or 
experience required by Part 



mi 



(ji 



m 



(iii) 



(a)(2)(E) of this Rule in the offic 
of registered architects in Nor 
Carolina; and 
prior to March JL, 1996, applyii 



for admission to sit for the AR 
in North Carolina no later th 
June, 1996, following completk 



by the applicant of the require 



practical training or experience: 



IE) 



fD)have three years' practical trainii 
or experience in the offices 
registered architects or its equivale: 
as outlined and defined in the Nor 
Carolina Board of Architecture 
Table of Equivalents for Educatic 
and Experience, Appendix A. A 
applicants who apply for architectur 
registration subsequent to July 
1987 shall be required to follow tl 
Intern Development Program (IDI 
through the National Council 
Architectural Registration Boards 
an equivalent program approved 1 
the North Carolina Board 
Architecture in order to satisfy tl 
requirements of this Section. In tl 
case of any applicant certifying to tl 
Board that he or she had accrue 
sufficient training credits under tl 
requirements of the current Append 
A prior to July 1, 1987, so that 12 c 
fewer months of training remained t 
be acquired, then the currei 
Appendix A shall continue in effe< 
for such applicant. 

(b) Retention of Credit. Transfer credits ft 
parts of the examination passed prior to the 198 
Architectural Registration Examination (ARE 
shall be as established by the Board. Informatio 
as to transfer credits will be provided, whe 
appropriate, to candidates as an inclusion with th 
application forms. 

(c) Practical Training. Practical training meai 
practical experience and diversified training 
defined in the North Carolina Board 
Architecture's Table of Equivalents for Educatio 
and Experience, Appendix A. However, th 
Board reserves the right to judge each case on i 
own merits. 

(d) Personal Audience. The candidate may b 
required to appear personally before the examinin 
board or a designated representative of the Boar 
and afford the Board an opportunity to judge h: 
natural endowments for the practice 
architecture, his ethical standards, and 



1914 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:2 



PROPOSED RULES 



questions gain further knowledge of his fitness for 
the practice of architecture. The time for this 
audience will be set by the examining body. 

(e) Grading. The ARE shall be graded in 
accordance with the methods and procedures 
recommended by the NCARB. 

(1) To achieve a passing grade on the 
ARE, an applicant must receive a 
passing grade of 75 in each division. 
Grades from the individual divisions 
may not be averaged. Applicants will 
have unlimited opportunities to retake 
divisions which they fail, but all 
divisions, previously failed, must be 
retaken at one time at a subsequent 
examination. 

(2) In order to insure fairness in grading 
and to preserve anonymity until after 
the examinations have been graded, 
each candidate will receive a number 
that will be unique for each candidate. 
This number shall be placed by the 
candidate on all papers and exhibits. 

(f) Time and place. Beginning in 1983, the 
Board will administer the ARE over a four day 
period to all applicants eligible, in accordance with 
the requirements of this Rule. The place and exact 
dates will be announced in advance of the 
examination. 

Statutory Authority G. S. 83A-1; 83A-6; 83A-7. 

0303 REGISTRATION BY RECIPROCITY 
WITHOUT WRnTEN EXAMINATION 

(a) Registration by "Blue Cover." Other than as 
provided by Paragraph (b) of this Rule, the only 



means of individual reciprocity recognized by the 
Board is for an individual to hold a current license 
in good standing from another state and a Council 
Certificate (also known as "Blue Cover") issued by 
the National Council of Architectural Registration 
Boards (NCARB). Upon receipt of a verified 
application from NCARB and the payment of the 
individual license application fee, the Board, in its 
discretion, may issue a license to an applicant 
without written examination as provided in G.S. 
83A-7(b). Revocation of the "Blue Cover" 
certificate by NCARB shall automatically terminate 
the architect's license to practice in North Carolina 
until such time as the "Blue Cover" is reinstated 
by NCARB. 

(b) Registration other than "Blue Cover. " The 
Board may grant a reciprocal certificate to an 



individual who demonstrates by submission of an 



NCARB "Buff Cover" that he meets all of North 



Carolina's pre- 1991 registration requirements but 

who does not hold a "Blue Cover" if: 

(JJ the applicant is and has been continu- 
ously registered in good standing for at 
least ten years in the states or state 
where the applicant has resided; 

(2) the applicant's architectural license has 
never been suspended or revoked by 
any registration board and he has no 
charges pending before any board; 

(3) the applicant submits to the Board 
affidavits from three licensed architects 
certifying the applicant's good moral 
character, general experience and com- 
petence; 

(4) the applicant has been a principal or 
owner of an architectural firm for the 
five years preceding the application; 

(5) the applicant agrees to an interview 
with the Board, if requested. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 83A-7. 

SECTION .0400 - RULES: 
PETITIONS: HEARINGS 

.0402 NOTICE OF RULE-MAKING 
HEARINGS 

Upon a determination to hold a rule-making 
proceeding, either in response to a petition or 
otherwise, the Board shall give notice to all inter- 
ested persons pursuant to the procedure established 
in Article 2 3A of Chapter 150B of the North 
Carolina General Statutes. 

Statutory Authority G. S. 83A-6; 150B-12. 

.0405 PRESIDEVG OFFICER: POWERS 
AND DUTIES 

The presiding officer at a rule-making hearing 
shall have complete control of the proceedings, 
including recognition of the speakers, time allot- 
ments for presentations, the right to question 
speakers, direction of the discussion and manage- 
ment of the hearing. The presiding officer, at all 
times, will take care that each person participating 
in the hearing is given a fair opportunity to present 
views, data and comments. Th e pre s iding offic e r 
shall conduct the rule making hearing pur s uant to 
th e procedure e stablish e d in Article 3 of Chapt e r 
1S0B of the North Carolina General Statute s . 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 150B-12. 

SECTION .0600 - ADMINISTRATIVE 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1915 



PROPOSED RULES 



HEARINGS: PROCEDURES 

.0602 RIGHT TO HEARING 

Wh e n the Board acts or propo s e s to aot, oth e r 
than in rul e making or d e claratory ruling proc e ed 
ings, in a manner whioh will affect th e righto, 
duti e s, — or privil e g e s of a sp e cific, — id e ntifiable 
p e rson, ouch p e rson has th e right to an administra 
tiv e h e aring. — When the Board proposes to aot in 
such mann e r, it shall giv e to all such aff e cted 
p e rsons notic e of th e ir right to a h e aring by mail 
ing by certified mail to them at th e ir last known 
addr e ss a notic e of the propos e d action and a 
notic e of a right to a h e aring. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 150B-11; 
150B-38. 

.0603 REQUEST FOR HEARING 

(a) Any time an individual b e liev e s — that 
individual's rights, duti e s, or privileges have boon 
affect e d believes he is a person aggrieved by the 
Board's administrative action, but has not received 
notice of a right to an administrative hearing, that 
individual may file a formal request for a hearing. 

(b) Before an individual may file a request, that 
individual is encouraged to exhaust all reasonable 
efforts to resolve the issue informally with the 
Board. 

(c) Subsequent to such informal action, if still 
dissatisfied, the individual must submit a request to 
the Board's office, with the request bearing the 
notation: REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 
HEARING. The request must contain the 
following information: 

(1) name and address of the petitioner; 

(2) a concise statement of the action taken 
by the Board which is challenged; 

(3) a concise statement of the way in which 
the petitioner has been aggrieved; and 

(4) a clear and specific statement of request 
for a hearing. 

(d) The request will be acknowledged promptly 
and, if deemed appropriate by the Board in accor- 
dance with Rule .0604 of this Section, a hearing 
will be scheduled. 

Statutory Authority G.S. 83A-6; 150B-11; 
150B-38. 



1916 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 










The List of Rules Codified is a listing of rules that were filed with OAH in the month indicated. 

Ixey: 

Citation = Title, Chapter, Subchapter and Rule(s) 

AD = Adopt 

AM = Amend 

RP = Repeal 

With Chgs = Final text differs from proposed text 

Corr = Typographical errors or changes that requires no rulemaking 

Eff. Date = Date rule becomes effective 

Temp. Expires = Rule was filed as a temporary rule and expires on this date or 180 days 


NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 
JANUARY 95 

ITTLE DEPARTMENT TITLE DEPARTMENT 

2 Agriculture 1 8 Secretary of State 

4 Commerce 19A Transportation 

5 Correction 21 Occupational Licensing Boards 

10 Human Resources 6 - Barber Examiners 

11 Insurance 17 - Dietetics/Nutrition 

12 Justice 18 - Electrical Contractors 

13 Labor 32 - Medical Examiners 
15A Environment, Health, and 34 - Mortuary Science 

Natural Resources 36 - Nursing 

16 Education 25 State Personnel 

17 Revenue 


Citation 


AD 


AM 


RP 


With 
Chgs 


Corr 


Eff. 
Date 


Temp. 
Expires 


2 NCAC 48E .0302 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




4 NCAC 3 TOC 










/ 






3G .0104 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0201 - .0203 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0301 - .0303 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0401 - .0403 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0501 - .0504 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0601 






/ 






02/01/95 




3K .0201 










/ 






.0203 










/ 








9:22 NORTH CAROLS 


/A REG 


ISTER 




Februtu 


y 15, l. 


995 


1917 





LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 










Citation 


AD 


AM 


RP 


With 
Chgs 


Corr 


Eff. 
Date 


Temp. 
Expires 


4 


NCAC 3K .0402 - .0405 










/ 






.0501 










/ 






.0601 










/ 






.0702 - .0703 










/ 






5 


NCAC 2B .0101 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0106 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0108 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0109 - .0113 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0114 


/ 










02/01/95 




10 


NCAC 3H .0221 




/ 




/ 




03/01/95 




30 .0104 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0105 






/ 






01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0305 - .0306 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0307 






/ 






01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0308 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0309 - .0310 






/ 






01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0403 - .0404 






/ 






01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0405 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0503 - .0506 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0507 






/ 






01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0605 - .0606 






/ 






01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0607 - .0608 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0609 - .0610 






/ 






01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.0705 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


3R .3001 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.3020 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.3030 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.3032 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.3040 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


.3050 




/ 








01/01/95 


180 DAYS 


3T .0102 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0402 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0901 




/ 








02/01/95 






1918 


NORTH CAROLINA 


i REGI 


STER 




/ 


"ebruary 


15, 1995 


9:22 



LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 










Citation 


AD 


AM 


RP 


With 
Chgs 


Corr 


Eff. 
Date 


Temp. 
Expires 


10 NCAC 3T .1102 




/ 








02/01/95 




.1109 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




26B .0119 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0201 - .0209 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0210 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0212 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0213 - .0214 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0215 - .0216 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0217 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0218 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0219 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0220 - .0222 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




411 .0305 - .0306 




/ 








02/01/95 




42A .0602 




/ 








03/01/95 




42C .3601 




/ 








03/01/95 




50B .0400 










/ 






.0403(e)(k) 










/ 






11 NCAC 6A .0801 - .0806 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




12 .1503 - .1504 




/ 








02/01/95 




16 .0701 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0702 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0703 - .0705 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




12 NCAC 7D .0112 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0202 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0205 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




13 NCAC 7F .0101(a)(3) 










/ 






.0101 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0201 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0201 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0501 




/ 








02/01/95 




13 .0101(24) 










/ 






.0202(a)(b) 










/ 






.0213(d)(e)(f) 










/ 








9:22 NORTH CAROLS 


J A REG 


ISTER 




Februai 


J 15, 1. 


995 


1919 





LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 










Citation 


AD 


AM 


RP 


With 

Chgs 


Corr 


Eff. 
Date 


Temp. 
Expires 


13 


NCAC 13 .0304(b)(c) 










/ 






.0405(f) (h) 










/ 






.0411(e)(g) 










/ 






17 .0101 - .0102 


/ 






/ 




02/27/95 




.0103 - .0104 


/ 










02/27/95 




.0105 - .0107 


/ 






/ 




02/27/95 




.0108 - .0111 


/ 










02/27/95 




15A 


NCAC 2D .0501 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0516 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0530 




/ 








02/01/95 




2Q .0112 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0312 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0507 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0518 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0525 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0607 


/ 










02/01/95 




31 .0001 




/ 




/ 




03/01/95 




.0015 


/ 






/ 




03/01/95 




.0016 


/ 










03/01/95 




.0017 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




3J .0401 




/ 








03/01/95 




3M .0504 




/ 








03/01/95 




.0513 


/ 










03/01/95 




30 .0110 


/ 






/ 




03/01/95 




.0201 




/ 




/ 




03/01/95 




.0205 




/ 




/ 




03/01/95 




.0208 




/ 








03/01/95 




.0301 - .0304 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0305 


/ 










02/01/95 




.0306 - .0307 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




.0308 - .0310 


/ 










02/01/95 




10F .0103 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0319 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 






1920 


NORTH CAROLINA 


i REG1 


STER 




/ 


"ebruary 


15, 1995 


9:22 



LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 










Citation 


AD 


AM 


RP 


With 
Chgs 


Corr 


Eff. 
Date 


Temp. 
Expires 


15A NCAC 10F .0332 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




10G .0206 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




13A .0000 










/ 






16A .0413 - .0427 














EXPIRED 


18A .2803 - .2804 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.2806 - .2808 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.2809 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2812 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.2813 - .2814 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2815- .2817 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.2818 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2819 - .2821 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




i .2822 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2823 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.2824 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2826 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2827 - .2828 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.2829 - .2830 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2833 




/ 








02/01/95 




.2834 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




24A .0404 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




16 NCAC 6C .0310 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




6E .0202 










/ 






17 NCAC 4D .0506 




/ 








03/01/95 




.0508 




/ 








03/01/95 




.0509 






/ 






03/01/95 




.0901 




/ 








03/01/95 




.0907 - .0908 




/ 








03/01/95 




.1001 




/ 








03/01/95 




.1003 


/ 










03/01/95 




18 NCAC 7 .0303 










/ 






19A NCAC 2D .0825 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




21 NCAC 6L .0003 










/ 








u .22 NORTH CAROLS 


J A REG 


ISTER 




Februai 


y is, 1. 


995 


1921 





LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 










Citation 


AD 


AM 


RP 


With 
Chgs 


Corr 


Eff. 
Date 


Temp. 
Expires 


21 NCAC 


6L .0006 










/ 






recodified to 


17 .0001 - .0016 
17 .0101 - .0116 












02/01/95 




.0107 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0109 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0113 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0201 - .0203 


/ 






/ 




02/01/95 




18B .0105 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0401 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0703 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0705 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0801 




/ 








02/01/95 




.1001 




/ 








02/01/95 




32B .0305(a) 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0305(c) 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0315 




/ 








02/01/95 




320 .0001 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0010 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0011 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0012 




/ 








02/01/95 




34C .0301(a)(3) 










/ 






36 .0217 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




25 NCAC 


IE .0901 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0903 - .0904 




/ 








02/01/95 




.0905 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 




.0906 






/ 






02/01/95 




.0908 




/ 




/ 




02/01/95 






1922 


NORTH CAROLIM 


\ REG1 


STER 




I 


^ebruary 


15, 1995 


9:22 



RRC OBJECTIONS 



1 he Rules Review Commission (RRC) objected to the following rules in accordance with G.S. 
150B-21.9(a). State agencies are required to respond to RRC as provided in G.S. 150B-21. 12(a). 



COMMERCE 
Banking Commission 

4 NCAC 3K .0201 - Application for Authorization/ '/Reverse Mortgage Lender 

Agency Revised Rule 
4 NCAC 3K .0205 - Certificate of Authorization 

Agency Revised Rule 
4 NCAC 3K .0206 - Nontransferability of Certificate of Authorization 

Agency Revised Rule 

4 NCAC 3K .0601 - Counseling 

Agency Revised Rule 

CORRECTION 
Division of Prisons 

5 NCAC 2B .0111 - Good Time 

Agency Revised Rule 
5 NCAC 2B .0112 - Gain Time 

Agency Revised Rule 
5 NCAC 2B .0113 - Earned Time 

Agency Revised Rule 

ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Environmental Health 

15A NCAC 18A .2801 - Definitions 

15A NCAC 18A .2810 - Specifications for Kitchens, Based on Number/Children 

Environmental Management 

15A NCAC 2Q .0112 - Applications Requiring Professional Engineer Seal 
No Response from Agency 
Rule Returned to Agency 
Agency Filed Rule for Codification Over RRC Objection 

General Procedures for Public Health Programs 

15A NCAC 24A .0404 - Reimbursement for Services Not Covered by Medicaid 
RRC Approved Motion to Reconsider 
Rule Returned to Agency 
Agency Filed Rule for Codification Over RRC Objection 

Marine Fisheries 

15A NCAC 31 .0017 - Fishery Resource Grant Program 



RRC 


Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. 


Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC 


Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. 


Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC 


Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. 


Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC 


Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. 


Removed 


12/15/94 



RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 



01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 



RRC Objection 01/19/95 
RRC Objection 01/19/95 



RRC Objection 1 1 II 7/94 

Obj. Contd 12/15/94 

Obj. Contd 01/19/95 

Eff. 02/01/95 



RRC Objection 12/15/94 

Obj. Contd 12/15/94 

Obj. Contd 01/19/95 

Eff. 02/01/95 



RRC Objection 01/19/95 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1923 



RRC OBJECTIONS 



Agency Revised Rule 
15A NCAC 30 .0304 - Consideration of Appeal Petitions 
Agency Revised Rule 

Wildlife Resources and Water Safety 

15A NCAC 10B .0106 - Wildlife Taken for Depredations or Accidentally 

Agency Revised Rule 

Agency Revised Rule 
15A NCAC 10G .0206 - Authority of Boat Registration Agents 

Agency Revised Rule 

HUMAN RESOURCES 
Facility Services 

10 NCAC 3H .0221 - Administrative Penalty Determination Process 

Agency Revised Rule 
10 NCAC 3T . 0102 - Definitions 

Agency Revised Rule 
10 NCAC 3T . 1109 - Resident Care Areas 

Agency Revised Rule 

Individual and Family Support 

10 NCAC 42C .3601 - Administrative Penalty Determination Process 
Agency Revised Rule 

Medical Assistance 

10 NCAC 26H .0211 - DRG Rate Setting Methodology 
10 NCAC 26H .0212 - Exceptions to DRG Reimbursement 

Agency Revised Rule 
10 NCAC 26H .0216 - Cost Reporting and Audits 

Agency Revised Rule 
10 NCAC 50B .0402 - Financial Responsibility and Deeming 

Agency Revised Rule 

INSURANCE 

Actuarial Services Division 



Obj. Removed 01/19/95 
RRC Objection 01/19/95 
Obj. Removed 01/19/95 



RRC Objection 
Obj. Contd 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 



RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 



RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 



RRC Objection 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 



11/17/94 
11/17/94 
12/15/94 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 



01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 



01/19/95 
01/19/95 



01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
01/19/95 
12/15/94 
12/15/94 



11 NCAC 16 .0705 - Claim Reserve Methodology and Actuarial Certification 
Agency Revised Rule 

Agent Services Division 

11 NCAC 6A .0801 - Definitions 

Agency Revised Rule 
11 NCAC 6A .0805 - Calculation of ICECs 

Agency Revised Rule 
11 NCAC 6A .0808 - Instructor Qualification 

Rule Withdrawn by Agency 
11 NCAC 6 A . 0809 - Approval of Courses 

Rule Withdrawn by Agency 



RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 



01/19/95 
01/19/95 



RRC Objection 01/19/95 

Obj. Removed 01/19/95 

RRC Objection 01/19/95 

Obj. Removed 01/19/95 

01/19/95 

01/19/95 



1924 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



RRC OBJECTIONS 



11 NCAC 6 A .0811 - Sanctions for Noncompliance 
Rule Withdrawn by Agency 

LABOR 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel 



13 NCAC 13 .0202 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0204 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0205 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0211 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0212 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0213 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0304 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0402 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0405 

Agency Revised 
13 NCAC 13 .0411 

Agency Revised 



- Inspector Qualification 
Rule 

- Conflict of Interest 
Rule 

- Owner-User Inspection Agency 
Rule 

- Certificate Inspections 
Rule 

- Preparation for Inspection 
Rule 

- Fees 
Rule 

- Appeals 
Rule 

- North Carolina Stamping and Registration 
Rule 

- Safety Valves 
Rule 

- Valves, Drains, and Bottom Blowoffs 
Rule 



Private Personnel Services 

13 NCAC 17 .0102 - Licensing Procedures 

Agency Revised Rule 
13 NCAC 17 .0105 - Fee Reimbursement 

Rule Withdrawn by Agency 

LICENSING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 
Commission for Auctioneers 

21 NCAC 4B .0501 - Application for Course Approval 

Rule Withdrawn by Agency 
21 NCAC 4B .0502 - Requirements for Approval/Minimum Standards 

Rule Withdrawn by Agency 

Board of Dietetics/Nutrition 

21 NCAC 17 .0113 -Fees 

Agency Revised Rule 
21 NCAC 17 .0201 - Definitions 

Agency Revised Rule 
21 NCAC 17 .0202 - Requirement for Review 

Agency Revised Rule 
27 NCAC 17 .0203 - Review and Board Action 

Agency Revised Rule 



01/19/95 



RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 


RRC Objection 


12/15/94 


Obj. Removed 


12/15/94 



RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 



01/19/95 
01/19/95 

01/19/95 



12/15/94 
12/15/94 



RRC Objection 


01/19/95 


Obj. Removed 


01/19/95 


RRC Objection 


01/19/95 


Obj. Removed 


01/19/95 


RRC Objection 


01/19/95 


Obj. Removed 


01/19/95 


RRC Objection 


01/19/95 


Obj. Removed 


01/19/95 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1925 



RRC OBJECTIONS 



Board of Examiners of Electrical Contractors 

21 NCAC 18B .0901 - Applicants Convicted of Crimes 

Board of Opticians 

21 NCAC 40 .0314 - Apprenticeship and Internship Requirements; Registration 
Agency Revised Rule 
No Response from Agency 
Agency Responded 

Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors 

21 NCAC 56 .0502 - Application Procedure: Individual 
Rule Returned to Agency 
Agency Filed Rule for Codification Over RRC Objection 

PUBLIC EDUCATION 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

16 NCAC 6E .0202 - Inters cholastic Athletics 
Agency Revised Rule 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

Notary Public Division 

78 NCAC 7 .0103 - Notaries Public Deputy 

Agency Repealed Rule 
18 NCAC 7 .0301 - Approved Course of Study 

No Response from Agency 
18 NCAC 7 .0302 - Instructors 

No Response from Agency 

TRANSPORTATION 
Division of Highways 

19A NCAC 2B .0603 - Driveway Permits for Special Commercial Property 

Agency Revised Rule 
19 A NCAC ID .0825 - Confidentiality of Cost Estimates and Plan Holder Lists 

Agency Rexised Rule 



RRC Objection 01/19/95 



RRC Objection 11/1 7/94 

Obj. Contd 11/17/94 

Obj. Contd 12/15/94 

Obj. Contd 01/19/95 



RRC Objection 11/17/94 

Obj. Contd 12/15/94 

Eff. 01/01/95 



RRC Objection 12/15/94 
Obj. Removed 12/15/94 



RRC Objection 
Obj. Removed 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Contd 
RRC Objection 
Obj. Contd 



12/15/94 
12/15/94 
12/15/94 
01/19/95 
12/15/94 
01/19/95 



RRC Objection 12/15/94 

Obj. Removed 12/15/94 

RRC Objection 01/19/95 

Obj. Removed 01/19/95 



1926 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



1 his Section contains the full text of some of the more significant Administrative Law Judge decisions 
along with an index to all recent contested cases decisions which are filed under North Carolina *s 
Administrative Procedure Act. Copies of the decisions listed in the index and not published are available 
upon request for a minimal charge by contacting the Office of Administrative Hearings, (919) 733-2698. 



AGENCY 

ADMINISTRATION 

North Carolina Council for Women 

fiimily Violence Prevention Services v. N.C. Council for Women 

Division of Purchase and Contract 

Carolina Tel. & Telegraph Co. v. Admin., Div of Purchase & Contract 

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL COMMISSION 

Jerry Lee McGowan v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Entertainment Group, Inc. 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Daehae Chang 

Rayvon Stewart v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Branchland, Inc. 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Peggy Sutton Walters 

Russell Bernard Speller d/b/a Cat's Disco v. Alcoholic Bev Ctl Comm. 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Branchland, Inc. 

Edward Ogunjobi, Club Piccadilli v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 

Robert Kovalaske, Nick Pikoulas, Joseph Marshburn, Evangelos Pikoulas, 

d/b/a Our Mom's BBQ v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Christine George Williams v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 
Lynn Ann Garfagna v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Raleigh Limits, Inc. 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. COLAP Enterprises, Inc. 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 
Mr. & Mrs. Josh Bullock Jr. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. 
Jerome Crawford v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Lawrence Mungin v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Willie Poole Jr. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Alonza Mitchell v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Roy Dale Cagle v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Aytes Investments, Inc. v. ABC Comm. and Ripley Hotch, et. al. 
Christopher C. Gause, James A Jinwright v. Alcoholic Bev. Ctl. Comm. 
Rajaddin Abdelaziz v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Sherrie Rena Quick 
Carol Hewitt v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 
Alcoholic Bev. Ctrl. Comm. v. Partnership, T/A Price Downs Food Mart 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. Sheila Charlesine Hildebrand 
Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm. v. James Earl Mullins, Sr. 

COMMERCE 

Savings Institutions Division 

James E. Byers, et al v. Savings Institutions 



Mitch's Tavern, Inc. 
Ms. Lucy Jarrell Powell 
Richard Wayne Barrow 
Subhashbai C. Patel 
Daphne Ann Harrell 



CASE 
NUMBER 



94 DOA 0242 



94 DOA 0516 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



West 



93 COM 1622 



Chess 



04/13/94 



Morrison 01/21/95 



93 ABC 0363 


Morrison 


08/23/94 


93 ABC 0719 


Gray 


03/02/94 


93 ABC 0775 


Morrison 


09/21/94 


93 ABC 0793 


Nesnow 


04/11/94 


93 ABC 0892 


Morgan 


06/03/94 


93 ABC 0906 


Mann 


03/18/94 


93 ABC 0937 


Morrison 


03/07/94 


93 ABC 0993 


Morgan 


06/03/94 


93 ABC 1024 


West 


03/03/94 


93 ABC 1029 


Gray 


03/04/94 


93 ABC 1057 


Becton 


04/21/94 


93 ABC 1481 


Gray 


07/19/94 


93 ABC 1485 


Mann 


03/11/94 


94 ABC 0060 


Nesnow 


06/07/94 


94 ABC 0064 


Gray 


07/26/94 


94 ABC 0070 


Morgan 


06/06/94 


94 ABC 0079 


Gray 


10/14/94 


94 ABC 0083 


West 


11/01/94 


94 ABC 0115 


Nesnow 


07/18/94 


94 ABC 0124 


Morgan 


06/06/94 


94 ABC 0125 


Morgan 


06/06/94 


94 ABC 0149 


Chess 


08/08/94 


94 ABC 0232 


Chess 


09/02/94 


94 ABC 0257 


Morrison 


07/28/94 


94 ABC 0260 


West 


07/13/94 


94 ABC 0291 


West 


01/25/95 


94 ABC 0532 


Gray 


09/27/94 


94 ABC 0600 


Chess 


09/22/94 


94 ABC 0717 


Gray 


12/16/94 


94 ABC 0804 


Gray 


01/04/95 


94 ABC 0856 


West 


11/22/94 


94 ABC 0909 


Becton 


01/10/95 


94 ABC 0934 


West 


12/05/94 



03/01/94 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



9:22 NCR 1943 



9:11 NCR 870 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1927 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



CASE 
NUMBER 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



CORRECTION 

Division of Prisons 

Gene Strader v. Department of Correction 



94 DOC 0252 



Morrison 03/21/94 



CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

Joseph Guernsey & Barents, Robert Guernsey &. Dolores Guernsey 
v. Pitt County Hospital Eastern Radiologists 



94CPS 0413 



Gray 



07/11/94 



Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Mae H. McMillan v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

James Hugh Baynes v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Ross T. Bond v. Victims Compensation Commission 

James A. Canady v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Virginia Roof v. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety 

Karen C. Tilghman v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Rosemary Taylor v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Violet E. Kline v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Jacqueline Shepaid v. Victims Compensation Commission 

James Benton v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Percy Clark v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

J. Richaid Spencer v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Albert H. Walker v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Barbara Hendeison v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Shirley Handsome v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Georgeann Young v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Laurence L. Tyson v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Ada Battle v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Lyman L. Chapman v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Douglas and Virginia Wilson v. Crime Victims Compensation Comm. 

Blanche J. Taylor v. William Hooks Jr., Crime Victims Comp. Comm. 

Michelle L. Wilcox v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Charlie E. McDonald v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Lillie Alford/behalf/estate/Venise Alfoid v. Crime Victims Comp. Comm. 

Michael G. Low v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Torbit Smith v. Victims Compensation Commission 

Maureen P. Wilson v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Kay Thompson Chambeis v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

James R. Gray v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Hazel Jarvis v. Victims Compensation Commission 

J^ttie Hale v. Victims Compensation Fund 

Dana Harris v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Dorian Walter St. Patrick Scott v. Victims Compensation Comm. 

Timothy W. Grant v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Marvin C. Barnes v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

Susan Cooley v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

In the Matter of the Claim of Claimant: Shirley Robinson Victim: 

Dandre J. Lamont Offender Charles Fernandez v. Crime Victims 

Compensation Comm. 
Mary E. Haskins v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 
Susan Wade v. Victims Compensation Commission 
Donna C. Garrison v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission 

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION 

David Lee Bush v. Employment Security Commission 

ENVIRONMENT. HEALTH. AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Bobby Stallings v. Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 

James M. Lyles v. Brunswick County Office of Permits 

Erby Lamar Grainger v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 



92 CPS 1328 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


93 CPS 0801 


West 


03/28/94 


93 CPS 1 104 


West 


04/21/94 


93 CPS 1108 


Gray 


03/28/94 


93 CPS 1347 


Nesnow 


03/24/94 


93 CPS 1608 


Reilly 


05/17/94 


93 CPS 1626 


Nesnow 


05/25/94 


93 CPS 1670 


Morgan 


06/13/94 


93 CPS 1720 


Chess 


12/06/94 


94 CPS 0034 


Chess 


06/14/94 


94 CPS 0127 


Reilly 


04/19/94 


94 CPS 0157 


Chess 


06/14/94 


94 CPS 0229 


Reilly 


08/11/94 


94 CPS 0259 


Morrison 


04/07/94 


94 CPS 0286 


Gray 


04/28/94 


94 CPS 0292 


Reilly 


04/18/94 


94 CPS 0368 


Gray 


04/26/94 


94 CPS 0414 


Reilly 


08/23/94 


94 CPS 0415 


Chess 


06/02/94 


94 CPS 0417 


Reilly 


06/07/94 


94 CPS 0464 


Mann 


10/28/94 


94 CPS 0467 


Reilly 


06/07/94 


94 CPS 0468 


Gray 


09/02/94 


94 CPS 0488 


West 


11/10/94 


94 CPS 0524 


Morrison 


06/13/94 


94 CPS 0535 


Bee ton 


10/26/94 


94 CPS 0567 


Gray 


09/23/94 


94 CPS 0581 


Morrison 


09/28/94 


94 CPS 0603 


Reilly 


08/19/94 


94 CPS 0664 


Chess 


07/29/94 


94 CPS 0734 


West 


09/06/94 


94 CPS 0832 


Nesnow 


09/26/94 


94 CPS 0883 


Nesnow 


10/04/94 


94 CPS 0904 


Gray 


01/24/95 


94 CPS 0922 


Mann 


01/30/95 


94 CPS 1004 


Gray 


12/27/94 


94 CPS 1070 


Nesnow 


12/12/94 


94 CPS 1406 


Gray 


03/17/94 


94 CPS 1685 


Morrison 


02/01/95 


94 CPS 1690 


Reilly 


01/18/95 



91 ESC 0395 



90 EHR 0612 

92 EHR 0333 

93 EHR 0071 



Reilly 



08/18/94 



9:2 NCR 114 



9:6 NCR 407 



9:13 NCR 1056 



Morgan 08/11/94 

Chess 09/22/94 

Reilly 11/22/94 



1928 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



William P. Shaver, R. McKinnon Morrison IE, Till Ray, Dr. Wesley 

C. Ray, Douglas W. Furr, Catherine H. Furr & Caldwell Creek Farm, Inc. 

v. EHNR-State of North Carolina 
Ron D. Graham, Suzanne C. Graham v. Robert Cobb, Mecklenburg Cty 
Robert, Stephanie & Joshua Campbell v. EHNR; Child. Spcl Hlth Svcs 
Carnel D. Pearson Jr. v. Craven Co. Division of Health & DEHNR 
Patricia D. Solomon v. Macon County Health Department 
Elbert L. Winslow v. EHNR/Guilford Cty Health Dept. &, Guilford Cty 

Planning & Zoning Board 
Kathryn A. Whitley v. Macon County Health Department 
Brook Hollow Estates v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 
Laney Oil Company, Inc. v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 
Bobty Combs v. Public Water Supply Section 

Oceanfront Court, David C. Gagnon v. Environment, Health, Si, Nat. Res. 
Scotland Water Co. v. Environment, Health, &. Natural Resources 
Sam's Club #8219 v. Mecklenburg County Health Department 
Everhart & Associates., Inc. and Hettie Tolson Johnson v. Environment, 

Health, and Natural Resources and Zelig Robinson 
Richard A. Jenkins v. NC Water Pollution Ctl. Sys. Op. Cert. Comm. 
Eugene Crawford &. Nancy P. Crawford v. Macon County Health Dept. 
Joseph B. Leggett v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 
Tri-Circuits, Inc. v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 
Thomas Taylor Fain v. Martin-Tyrrell-Wash. Dist. Health Dept., EHNR 
Marlen C Robb, Jr. v. CAMA, Washington, NC EHNR 
Irene, Will, Eric Litaker v. Montgomery County Health Department 
James Loder v. New Hanover Inspection Svcs., Local CAM A Permit Off. 
H. W. Golding v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 
National Food Market v. Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 



CASE 




DATE OF 


PUBLISHED DECISION 


NUMBER 


ALJ 


DECISION 


REGISTER CITATION 


93 EHR 0452 


Morgan 


08/11/94 




93 EHR 1017 


Becton 


05/31/94 




93 EHR 1019 


Becton 


12/28/94 


9:20 NCR 1688 


93 EHR 1759 


Mann 


09/06/94 




93 EHR 1777 


West 


05/23/94 




94 EHR 0086 


Chess 


07/13/94 




94 EHR 0088 


West 


07/13/94 




94 EHR 0093 


West 


06/03/94 




94 EHR 0098 


Nesnow 


01/13/95 




94 EHR 0202 


West 


10/19/94 




94 EHR 0210 


Chess 


06/21/94 




94 EHR 0239 


Morrison 


01/31/95 




94 EHR 0329 


Nesnow 


06/15/94 


9:7 NCR 496 


94 EHR 0392 


Reilly 


10/18/94 


9:15 NCR 1231 


94 EHR 0424 


West 


10/11/94 




94 EHR 0500 


Gray 


06/10/94 




94 EHR 0560 


West 


09/21/94 




94 EHR 0601 


Morrison 


06/30/94 




94 EHR 0736 


West 


11/22/94 




94 EHR 0767 


West 


11/22/94 




94 EHR 0776 


Gray 


09/06/94 




94 EHR 0821 


Chess 


11/21/94 




94 EHR 0913 


Reilly 


01/23/95 




94 EHR 0998 


Reilly 


12/19/94 





Coastal Management 



Roger Fuller v. EHNR, Div. of Coastal Mgmt & Environmental Mgmt 
Roger Fuller v. EHNR, Div. of Coastal Mgmt &. Environmental Mgmt 
John R. Hooper v. EHNR, Div./Coastal Mgmt & Bird's Nest Partnership 
Gary E. Montalbine v. Division of Coastal Management 
Paley-Midgett Partnership v. Coastal Resources Commission 



89 EHR 1378-2 Gray 04/07/94 

90 EHR 0017* Gray 04/07/94 
90 EHR 0455 Morgan 08/11/94 

93 EHR 1792 Nesnow 03/21/94 

94 EHR 0315 Gray 06/01/94 



Craven County Health Department 

Cox Transport Equipment, Harvey A Cox v. County of Craven, EHNR 94 EHR 0487 West 

Environmental Health 



11/01/94 



Jane C. O'Malley, Melvin L. Cartwright v. EHNR &. District Hlth Dept 

Pasquotank-Perquimans-Camden-Chowan 
Henry Lee Bulluck v. Nash County Health Department &. EHNR 
Environment, Health. & Natural Res. v. Clark Hams & Jessie Lee Harris 
Richard F. Ebersold v. Jackson County Health Department & EHNR 
Crab Shack Restaurant v. EHNR, Div. of Environmental Health 
Sidney S. Tate Jr. v. Dept. of Environment, Health, &. Natural Resources 
George A Waugh, Shirley A. Waugh v. Carteret Cty Health & Env. Hlth 
Scotland Water Co., Laurin Lakes v. Environment, Health, & Nat. Res. 
H.A. Lentz v. Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 
Floyd Benn Williams v. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Nat. Res. 
Robert Leon Snipes v. Environmental Health, Hillsborough NC 
Ralston Pound, Jr. & Deanie S. Pound v. Carteret Cty. Env. Health Dept. 

Environmental Management 

David Springer v. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 
Petroleum Installation Equipment Co., Inc. v. Env., Health &. Nat. Res. 
Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority v. EHNR, Div of Env. Management 
Howell's Child Care Center, Inc. v. EHNR, Div of Environmental Mgmt. 
Spring Valley Meats, Inc. v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 



Consolidated Cases. 



91 EHR 0838 


Becton 


04/06/94 


93 EHR C34S 


Morgan 


07/22/94 


93 EHR 0924 


Becton 


03/03/94 


93 EHR 1391 


Chess 


06/24/94 


93 EHR 1609 


Gray 


12/27/94 


94 EHR 0005 


Reillv 


05/24/94 


94 EHR 0128 


Chess 


07/13/94 


94 EHR 0200 


Nesnow 


04/27/94 


94 EHR 0235 


Nesnow 


07/19/94 


94 EHR 0333 


Reilly 


05/18/94 


94 EHR 0529 


Morrison 


01/04/95 


94 EHR 1003 


Reilly 


12/07/94 



92 EHR 1797 


Morgan 


05/19/94 


93 EHR 0531 


Chess 


03/21/94 


93 EHR 0684*" 


West 


01/31/95 


93 EHR 0955 


West 


11/02/94 


93 EHR 0974 


West 


11/03/94 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1929 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



Jack Griffin v. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 
Wooten Oil Company v. EHNR, Div of Environmental Management 
John G. Owens & J.B.S. Mechanical Svcs, Inc. v. EHNR, Env. Mgmt. 
Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority v. EHNR, Div of Env. Management 
General Electric Co., Inc. v. EHNR, Env. Mgmt. Comm. & City/Mehane 



CASE 




DATE OF 


PUBLISHED DECISION 


NUMBER 


ALJ 


DECISION 


REGISTER CITATION 


93 EHR 1030 


Bee ton 


03/21/94 




94 EHR 0001 


West 


09/30/94 




94 EHR 0024 


Mann 


09/07/94 




94 EHR 0612*" 


West 


01/31/95 




94 EHR 1031 


Reilly 


11/30/94 


9:19 NCR 1595 



Land Resources 



Wallace B. Clayton, Dr. Marshall Redding v, Div. of Land Resources 
Town of Kernersville (LQS 93-053) v. Environment, Health, & Nat. Res. 
Royee Perry, Paul Perry v. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Res. 



93 EHR 1407 


Morgan 


08/09/94 


93 EHR 1781 


Chess 


06/29/94 


94 EHR 0525 


Gray 


07/01/94 



9:8 NCR 



581 



Marine Fisheries 



Robert I. Swinson, Virginia S. Swinson v. EHNR, Div/Marine Fisheries 

Larry J. Batson v. Division of Marine Fisheries 

David W. Oglesry v. Division of Marine Fisheries 

David E. Oglesby v. Division of Marine Fisheries 

James Goodman v. EHNR, Division of Marine Fisheries 

Billy Ervin Burton v. Division of Marine Fisheries 



93 EHR 0394 


Gray 


04/11/94 






93 EHR 0857 


Morgan 


07/22/94 






93 EHR 0930* 


West 


07/25/94 


9:10 NCR 


758 


93 EHR 0931* 


West 


07/25/94 


9:10 NCR 


758 


94 EHR 0035 


Nesnow 


07/18/94 


9:9 NCR 


660 


94 EHR 0504 


Nesnow 


09/01/94 







Maternal and Child Health 



WIC Section 



Anthony Awueah v. EHNR, Div. Maternal & Child Health, WIC Section 94 EHR 0718 
Orange Finer Food v. Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 94 EHR 0965 

Salah Helu v. Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 94 EHR 0976 



Chess 


09/23/94 


Reilly 


12/19/94 


Reilly 


12/20/94 



Solid Waste Management 



Roger Sessoms v. EHNR/ Asbestos Hazard Management Branch 93 EHR 0951 

Bertie Citizens Action Coalition, Inc.; Willaid J. Oliver, Reginald Early, 93 EHR 1045 

Herbert Jenkins, Jr., Lindwood Earl Tripp, Willie Warren Tripp, Mary 
Alice Cherry, and Kathy Burden v. EHNR, Solid Waste Management 
Division, and East Carolina Environmenta!, Inc., Addington Environmental, 
Inc., et al. 
Bobby Benton v. EHNR & Division of Solid Waste 94 EHR 0442 



Gray 

Morrison 



Gray 



03/28/94 
04/06/94 



08/22/94 



9:3 NCR 214 



HUMAN RESOURCES 



Timothy Cre^d v. Montgomery Cty Dept. of Social Svcs. 

Jerome Triplin v. Department of Human Resources 

Helen J. Walls, Walls Young World v. Department of Human Resources 

Brenda C. Robinson v. Department of Human Resources 

Betty King v. Department of Human Resources 

Betty Rhodes v. Department of Human Resources 

Mr. Sc Mrs. Richard Bullen v. Department of Human Resources 

Bonnie Birchfield v. Mecklenburg D.S.S. Youth &. Family Svcs. 



94 CSE 1007 


Chess 


01/24/95 


93 DHR 0108 


Reilly 


08/19/94 


93 DHR 0965 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


94 DHR 0365 


West 


06/01/94 


94 DHR 0439 


Chess 


12/15/94 


94 DHR 0501 


Morrison 


06/02/94 


94 DHR 0811 


Becton 


11/14/94 


94 DHR 1559 


Gray 


01/24/95 



Distribution Child Support 



Mona L. Stanback v. DHR, Div/Social Svcs, Child Support Enf. Section 
Jaehell D. Parker v. Department of Human Resources 
Earleen G. Tinsley v. Department of Human Resources 



93 DCS 0969 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 DCS 0371 


Morgan 


07/14/94 


94 DCS 0651 


Nesnow 


09/15/94 



Division of Child Development 



Judith Fridley v. Div. of Child Development/Abuse/Neglect Unit 

DHR, Division of Child Development v. Joyce Gale 

Laureen Holt, ID#26-0-00037 v. DHR, Div. of Child Development 

Gloria C. Haith v. Department of Human Resources 

Gloria C. Haith v. Daycare Consultant 

Charles E. Smith v. Department of Human Resources 

Scott's Loving Day Care & Nursery, Mrs. Willie L. Scott v. DHR 

Belinda K. Mitchell v. Human Resources, Div. of Child Development 

Living Word Day Care, Jonathan Lankford v. Dept. of Human Resources 

David G. Whitted, Pres., Toddlers Academy, Inc. v. Div of Child Dev. 



93 DHR 0973 


Morrison 


03/08/94 


93 DHR 1344 


Gray 


04/28/94 


93 DHR 1549 


Beaton 


07/13/94 


93 DHR 1707 


Nesnow 


03/22/94 


93 DHR 1787 


Nesnow 


03/14/94 


93 DHR 1797 


Nesnow 


03/21/94 


94 DHR 0106 


Nesnow 


06/29/94 


94 DHR 0119 


Reilly 


06/30/94 


94 DHR 0168 


Nesnow 


03/23/94 


94 DHR 0453 


Mann 


09/23/94 



1930 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



CASE 
NUMBER 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



Miriam C. Kircher v. Human Resources, Div. of Child Development 94 DHR 0615 

Mary T. Hill v. Human Resources, Division of Child Development 94 DHR 0944 

Facility Services 



Laura Harvey Williams v. DHR, Division of Facility Services 

Presbyterian-Orthopaedic Hospital v. Department of Human Resources 

Judy Hoben Wallace v. Department of Human Resources 

Lowell Stafford v. Department of Human Resources 

Willie J. McCombs v. Human Resources, Div. of Facility Services 

Mr. & Mrs. Alvin Wilson v. DHR, Division of Facility Services 

Steve Alan Russell v. DHR, Div. of Facility Svcs, Emergency Med. Svcs 

Bettie Graham v. Youth and Family Services, Charlotte, N.C. 

Certificate of Need Section 



Charles E. Hunter, Jr., M.D. & Coastal Perfusion Svcs, Inc. v. 

Department of Human Resources, and Wilmington Perfusion 

Corp. and Howard F. Marks, Jr., M.D. 
Cape Fear Memorial Hospital v. Department of Human Resources 
Angel Community Hospital, Inc. v. DHR, Div. of Facility Svcs., Cert./ 

Need Section, and Britthaven, Inc., d/b/a Britthaven of Franklin 
The Carrolton of Fayetteville, Inc. v. Department of Human Resources 

and 
Highland House of Fayetteville, Inc. & Richard R. Allen Sr. v. DHR 
The Carrolton of Fayetteville, Inc. v. Department of Human Resources 

and 
Highland House of Fayetteville, Inc. & Richaid R. Allen Sr. v. DHR 
ABC Home Health Services, Inc. v. Human Resources, Div. of Facility 

Services, Certificate of Need Section v. Mecklenbuig Home Health, Inc 

d/b/a Home Health Professionals of Guilford 
Professional Nursing Services, Inc. and Betty Wallace v. Certificate of 

Need Section, Div. of Facility Services, Human Resources 
and 

Duplin Home Care & Hospice, Inc.; Hometown Hospice, Inc.; Craven County 

Health Dept. Home Health -Hospice Agency; Hospice of Pamlico County, 

Inc.; Hospice of Carteret County; and Comprehensive Home Health Care I, Inc 

Licensure Section 



Morrison 
Chess 



11/17/94 
11/16/94 



93 DHR 039 1 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


93 DHR 0805 


Reilly 


03/11/94 


93 DHR 0935 


Gray 


05/23/94 


93 DHR 1381 


Gray 


04/15/94 


94 DHR 0430 


Gray 


09/29/94 


94 DHR 0559 


Chess 


08/25/94 


94 DHR 0830 


Gray 


11/28/94 


94 DHR 1527 


Gray 


01/04/95 



93 DHR 0746 


Morgan 


04/11/94 


93 DHR 1552 


Reilly 


08/15/94 


94 DHR 0146 


West 


10/21/94 


94 DHR 0197* 5 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


94 DHR 0198* 5 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


94 DHR 0254 


Morrison 


11/17/94 


94 DHR 0609 


West 


11/21/94 



Gary C. Griggs v. DHR, Div of Facility Services, Licensure Section 

Division of Medical Assistance 

J.R., by and through her agent & Personal Rep., Hank Nea! v. DHR 
N.R. by & through her agt & personal rep E.C.J, v. DHR, Medical Assis. 
David Yott v. Department of Human Resources 

Sampson County Memorial Hospital v. DHR, Div of Medical Assistance 
Division of Medical Assistance v. Catawba Cty Dept. of Social Services 
Lu Ann Leidy, MD/Dorothea Dix Hosp. Child & Youth v. Medical Assis. 

Division of Social Services 

Evelyn Moore v. Department of Human Resources 

Nathaniel Harrell, Annie Harrell v. Department of Social Services 

Betty Snipes v. Person County Department of Social Services 

Child Support Enforcement Section 

Alfred Bennett v. Department of Human Resources 
Shelton Staples v. Department of Human Resources 
Helen Lee Harvell Jones v. Department of Human Resources 
Dalton Felton Sr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Colty S. Hughes v. Department of Human Resources 
Gary Eugene Honeycutt v. Department of Human Resources 
Vicki C. Conn v. Department of Human Resources 
John R. Lossiah v. Department of Human Resources 
Melvin L. Miller Sr. v. Department of Human Resources 



94 DHR 0517 



Chess 



12/01/94 



93 DHR 0528 


Gray 


04/27/94 


93 DHR 0538 


Chess 


07/01/94 


93 DHR 1113 


Gray 


04/05/94 


93 DHR 1760 


West 


09/07/94 


93 DHR 1778 


West 


03/04/94 


94 DHR 0448 


Chess 


06/21/94 



94 DHR 0293 


Reilly 


04/15/94 


94 DHR 0440 


Gray 


06/27/94 


94 DHR 1061 


Gray 


12/16/94 



90CSE 1146 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


91 CSE0660 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


91 CSE 1183 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


92 CSE 0532 


Morgan 


07/13/94 


92 CSE 1199 


Morgan 


08/10/94 


92 CSE 1207 


Morgan 


08/10/94 


92 CSE 1268 


Morgan 


08/10/94 


92 CSE 1345 


Mann 


10/13/94 


92 CSE 1372 


Morgan 


08/10/94 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1931 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



Robert L. Hicks v. Department of Human Resources 

Thomas Sadler v. Department of Human Resources 

Nancy Richaidson v. Department of Human Resources 

Frederick C. Burdick Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 

Darryl D. Leedy v. Department of Human Resources 

David M. Fogleman Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 

William Heckslall v. Department of Human Resources 

Luther Hatcher v. Department of Human Resources 

Bryan Jeffrey Cole v. Department of Human Resources 

Anthony E. Buliaid v. Department of Human Resources 

Donald E. Height v. Department of Human Resources 

Dexter L. Chambers v. Department of Human Resources 

Ronald E. Johnson v. Department of Human Resources 

Roger Moore v. Department of Human Resources 

Alvin Lee Martin v. Department of Human Resources 

James J. Malloy v. Department of Human Resources 

Robert Young v. Department of Human Resources 

Henry M. Dillard v. Department of Human Resources 

Vernon Byrd v. Department of Human Resources 

Sherman E. Ames v. Department of Human Resources 

Antonio Townsend v. Department of Human Resources 

Keith M. Gray v. Department of Human Resources 

Troy E. Pinkney v. Department of Human Resources 

Anthony A. Macon v. Department of Human Resources 

Walter Lee Corbett v. Department of Human Resources 

Joseph E. Kemstine v. Department of Human Resources 

Alvin M. Davis v. Department of Human Resources 

Thomas M. Birdwell HI v. Department of Human Resources 

Joe Louis Mayo v. Department of Human Resources 

Bobby Lewis Smith v. Department of Human Resources 

Lawrence D. Dean v. Department of Human Resources 

Louis C. Cade v. Department of Human Resources 

Richard J. Swarm v. Department of Human Resources 

Nash Andrew Newsome v. Department of Human Resources 

James E. Watson v. Department of Human Resources 

Robert Lee Barrett v. Department of Human Resources 

Anthony Raynor Sr. v. Department of Human Resources 

Betty A. Williams, Fred E. Jones v. Department of Human Resources 

Quinton Brickhouse v. Department of Human Resources 

Jeff A. Taylor v. Department of Human Resources 

Eric G. Sykes v. Department of Human Resources 

John Hagins v. Department of Human Resources 

Terrence D. Timmons v. Department of Human Resources 

Howard Vernon Adams v. Department of Human Resources 

Ray A. Johnstone v. Department of Human Resources 

Morris Ray Bethel v. Department of Human Resources 

William James Freeman v. Department of Human Resources 

Willie C. Hollis v. Department of Human Resources 

Edward Boggan v. Department of Human Resources 

Raymond Junior Cagle v. Department of Human Resources 

Ernest N. Pruitt Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 

Michael P. McCay v. Department of Human Resources 

Robert Matthew Rossi v. Department of Human Resources 

Bernadetfe Cook v. Department of Human Resources 

Rawan Weigel v. Department of Human Resources 

Lem Person v. Department of Human Resources 

Bobby Lee McCullers Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 

Randall R. Rhodes v. Department of Human Resources 

Glen Nelson Washington v. Department of Human Resources 

Michael V. Dockery v. Department of Human Resources 

Robert Corley Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 

Floyd E. Bailey v. Department of Human Resources 

DenniB W. Nolan v. Department of Human Resources 

Robert Calvin Connor v. Department of Human Resources 

James D. Williams v. Department of Human Resources 

Mahalon Eugene White v. Department of Human Resources 

Marty Franzen v. Department of Human Resources 

Vaughn D. Pearsall v. Department of Human Resources 



CASE 




DATE OF PUBLISHED DECISION 


NUMBKK 


ALJ 


DECISION REGISTER CITATION 


92 CSE 1591 


Morgan 


08/10/94 


92 CSE 1739 


Bee ton 


10/18/94 


93 CSE 0180 


Chess 


11/22/94 


93 CSE 0227 


Mann 


11/09/94 


93 CSE 0591 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


93 CSE 1074 


Mann 


10/10/94 


93 CSE 1077 


Reilly 


03/14/94 


93 CSE 1082 


Mann 


05/24/94 


93 CSE 1091 


Beaton 


03/30/94 


93 CSE 1094 


Nesnow 


06/13/94 


93 CSE 1110 


Morgan 


08/11/94 


93 CSE 1 124 


West 


03/28/94 


93 CSE 1 125 


Becton 


03/30/94 


93 CSE 1127 


Bee ton 


04/14/94 


93 CSE 1 128 


Nesnow 


04/04/94 


93 CSE 1132 


Gray 


10/03/94 


93 CSE 1133 


Reilly 


04/18/94 


93 CSE 1135 


Nesnow 


06/13/94 


93 CSE 1136 


Beeton 


08/22/94 


93 CSE 1137 


Chess 


11/09/94 


93 CSE 1139 


Becton 


03/30/94 


93 CSE 1140 


Nesnow 


06/28/94 


93 CSE 1148 


Mann 


03/29/94 


93 CSE 1149 


Gray 


04/26/94 


93 CSE 1150 


Reilly 


03/30/94 


93 CSE 1151 


Morgan 


07/15/94 


93 CSE 1152 


Morgan 


08/04/94 


93 CSE 1155 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1161 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 1162 


Nesnow 


06/16/94 


93 CSE 1165 


Gray 


10/27/94 


93 CSE 1166 


Morrison 


06/16/94 


93 CSE 1167 


Reilly 


06/17/94 


93 CSE 1170 


Mann 


03/17/94 


93 CSE 1171 


Gray 


04/26/94 


93 CSE 1172 


Morrison 


04/20/94 


93 CSE 1173 


Morrison 


10/27/94 


93 CSE 1178 


Nesnow 


04/20/94 


93 CSE 1179 


Gray 


01/05/95 


93 CSE 1180 


Morgan 


07/15/94 


93 CSE 1181 


Becton 


04/20/94 


93 CSE 1182 


Mann 


11/14/94 


93 CSE 1 183 


Becton 


10/11/94 


93 CSE 1184 


Chess 


12/27/94 


93 CSE 1186 


Morrison 


10/03/94 


93 CSE 1188 


West 


07/11/94 


93 CSE 1190 


Mann 


01/17/95 


93 CSE 1191 


Becton 


05/09/94 


93 CSE 1192 


Chess 


09/01/94 


93 CSE 1194 


Morrison 


10/03/94 


93 CSE 1197 


Nesnow 


06/28/94 


93 CSE 1198 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1199 


Becton 


08/22/94 


93 CSE 1202 


Gray 


04/27/94 


93 CSE 1212 


Gray 


08/26/94 


93 CSE 1214 


Morrison 


06/16/94 


93 CSE 1215 


Reilly 


06/17/94 


93 CSE 1219 


Nesnow 


06/16/94 


93 CSE 1221 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1222 


Morgan 


07/15/94 


93 CSE 1225 


Chess 


10/05/94 


93 CSE 1227 


Mann 


07/07/94 


93 CSE 1254 


Morrison 


04/27/94 


93 CSE 1258 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 1259 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 1261 


Nesnow 


08/22/94 


93 CSE 1264 


Morgan 


07/15/94 


93 CSE 1267 


Becton 


04/20/94 



1932 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



Gerald L. Murrell v. Department of Human Resources 
Larry D. Dawson v. Department of Human Resources 
McDaniel Teeter Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
King D. Graham v. Department of Human Resources 
Brian C. Carelock v. Department of Human Resources 
Bradford C. Lewis v. Department of Human Resources 
Derek Watson v. Department of Human Resources 
Luther Borden v. Department of Human Resources 
Walter B. Lester v. Department of Human Resources 
Wilbert E. Anderson v. Department of Human Resources 
David H. Johnson v. Department of Human Resources 
William Earl Arrington v. Department of Human Resources 
William K. Whisenant v. Department of Human Resources 
Curtis C. Osborne v. Department of Human Resources 
Stanley J. Forsack v. Department of Human Resources 
Larry Cornelius Smith v. Department of Human Resources 
Robert C. Lee Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Sidney Ray Tuggle Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Michael A. Amos v. Department of Human Resources 
Reginald Eugene Hill v. Department of Human Resources 
Jimmy C. Harvell v. Department of Human Resources 
John Edward Tannehill v. Department of Human Resources 
Benjamin McCormick v. Department of Human Resources 
Steven Connet v. Department of Human Resources 
Gregory N. Winley v. Department of Human Resources 
Ronald Brown v. Department of Human Resources 
David L. Hill v. Department of Human Resources 
Ronald Fred Metzger v. Department of Human Resources 
James L. Phillips v. Department of Human Resources 
John D. Bryant v. Department of Human Resources 
George Aaron Collins v. Department of Human Resources 
Ricky Glenn Mabe v. Department of Human Resources 
Samuel L. Dodd v. Department of Human Resources 
James W. Smith v. Department of Human Resources 
William A. Sellers v. Department of Human Resources 
Jerry Mclver v. Department of Human Resources 
Johnny B. Little v. Department of Human Resources 
Kenneth W. Cooper v. Department of Human Resources 
Nathan D. Winston v. Department of Human Resources 
Bobby Charles Coleman v. Department of Human Resources 
Anthony Curry v. Department of Human Resources 
Laura J. Klipp v. Department of Human Resources 
Charles W. Norwood Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
David L. Terry v. Department of Human Resources 
Audwin Lindsay v. Department of Human Resources 
Steven A. Elmquist v. Department of Human Resources 
Kelvin Dean Jackson v. Department of Human Resources 
Jerry R. Gibson v. Department of Human Resources 
Melvin Lewis Griffin v. Department of Human Resources 
Dennis E. Fountain Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Mark E. Rogers v. Department of Human Resources 
Daniel J. McDowell v. Department of Human Resources 
Edna VonCannon v. Department of Human Resources 
Darron J. Roberts v. Department of Human Resources 
Ephrom Sparkman Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Alton W. Ivey v. Department of Human Resources 
Terry James Carothers v. Department of Human Resources 
Terrance Freeman v. Department of Human Resources 
Thomas A. Ayers v. Department of Human Resources 
Daniel Thomas Hefele v. Department of Human Resources 
Gilbert J. Gutierrez v. Department of Human Resources 
Alton D. Johnson v. Department of Human Resources 
Darryl C. Thompson v. Department of Human Resources 
Jeffery E. Holley v. Department of Human Resources 
Chester Sanders v. Department of Human Resources 
Rodney Guyton v. Department of Human Resources 
Nelson Bennett v. Department of Human Resources 
Donald W. Clark v. Department of Human Resources 



CASE 




DATE OF PUBLISHED DECISION 


NUMBER 


AJLJ 


DECISION REGISTER CITATION 


93 CSE 


1271 


Gray 


08/26/94 


93 CSE 


1273 


Morrison 


07/07/94 


93 CSE 


1274 


Morrison 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 


1275 


Bee ton 


05/18/94 


93 CSE 


1276 


Mann 


10/13/94 


93 CSE 


1278 


Mann 


10/13/94 


93 CSE 


1283 


Reilly 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 


1284 


West 


06/23/94 


93 CSE 


1287 


Nesnow 


06/28/94 


93 CSE 


1288 


Nesnow 


10/12/94 


93 CSE 


1289 


Mann 


10/14/94 


93 CSE 


1290 


Mann 


10/14/94 


93 CSE 


1291 


Bee ton 


08/22/94 


93 CSE 


1299 


Gray 


09/19/94 


93 CSE 


1301 


Morrison 


08/23/94 


93 CSE 


1302 


Morrison 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 


1303 


Reilly 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 


1307 


West 


04/25/94 


93 CSE 


1308 


West 


07/15/94 


93 CSE 


1309 


West 


10/06/94 


93 CSE 


1310 


Nesnow 


10/27/94 


93 CSE 


1312 


Nesnow 


10/03/94 


93 CSE 


1313 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 


1315 


Mann 


10/14/94 


93 CSE 


1316 


Bee ton 


06/14/94 


93 CSE 


1318 


Bee ton 


06/29/94 


93 CSE 


1320 


Chess 


11/08/94 


93 CSE 


1323 


Mann 


09/26/94 


93 CSE 


1326 


Reilly 


06/17/94 


93 CSE 


1327 


Reilly 


10/27/94 


93 CSE 


1331 


West 


04/25/94 


93 CSE 


1356 


Mann 


09/26/94 


93 CSE 


1357 


Gray 


03/31/94 


93 CSE 


1358 


Gray 


08/26/94 


93 CSE 


1359 


Morrison 


04/20/94 


93 CSE 


1362 


Reilly 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 


1363 


West 


06/23/94 


93 CSE 


1364 


West 


04/27/94 


93 CSE 


1365 


Nesnow 


07/07/94 


93 CSE 1368 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 


1371 


Chess 


08/18/94 


93 CSE 1383 


Chess 


01/12/95 


93 CSE 


1385 


West 


06/13/94 


93 CSE 


1386 


Mann 


05/18/94 


93 CSE 1390 


Morrison 


07/15/94 


93 CSE 


1392 


Reilly 


04/29/94 


93 CSE 


1394 


West 


06/13/94 


93 CSE 1411 


Nesnow 


08/24/94 


93 CSE 


1412 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 


1414 


Chess 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 


1415 


Mann 


05/03/94 


93 CSE 


1416 


Gray 


09/19/94 


93 CSE 


1417 


Morrison 


06/14/94 


93 CSE 


1419 


West 


08/23/94 


93 CSE 


1422 


Morgan 


08/04/94 


93 CSE 


1426 


Mann 


11/18/94 


93 CSE 


1428 


Gray 


10/26/94 


93 CSE 


1430 


Gray 


12/14/94 


93 CSE 


1431 


Morrison 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 


1432 


Morrison 


04/28/94 


93 CSE 


1433 


Morrison 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 


1434 


Reilly 


04/29/94 


93 CSE 


1435 


Reilly 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 


1436 


Reilly 


08/23/94 


93 CSE 


1437 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 


1439 


West 


04/21/94 


93 CSE 1440 


Nesnow 


08/31/94 


93 CSE 


1441 


Nesnow 


05/13/94 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1933 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



William E. David Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Arthur Lee Carter v. Department of Human Resources 
Frank Reiff v. Department of Human Resources 
Milburn Ray Burton v. Department o( Human Resources 
John J. Gabriel v. Department of Human Resources 
Robert Hayes v. Department of Human Resources 
Donald Ray Copeland v. Department of Human Resources 
Clark Anthony Bryant v. Department of Human Resources 
Timothy D. Evans v. Department of Human Resources 
Billy Edward Smith v. Department of Human Resources 
Allen D. Terrell v. Department of Human Resources 
Ray C. Moses v. Department of Human Resources 
Mickey Bridget! v. Department of Human Resources 
Steven W. Tallent v. Department of Human Resources 
Stephen L. Brown v. Department of Human Resources 
David Beduhn v. Department of Human Resources 
Bart Ransom v. Department of Human Resources 
William H. Simpson Sr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Clarence J. Galling Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
James D McClure Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Timothy E. Stotlar v. Department of Human Resources 
Christopher Ivan Smith v. Department of Human Resources 
Douglas L. Cherrix v. Department of Human Resources 
Billy L. Sneed v. Department of Human Resources 
Dwayne Lamont Thompson v. Department of Human Resources 
Michael Edwin Smith v. Department of Human Resources 
Horace Lee Bass v. Department of Human Resources 
Michael Wilder v. Department of Human Resources 
William Howard Wright v. Department of Human Resources 
James A. Cephas v. Department of Human Resources 
Edward E. Furr v. Department of Human Resources 
James Hunsaker v. Department of Human Resources 
James W Ragsdale v. Department of Human Resources 
Charles Henderson v. Department of Human Resources 
Mark E. Campbell v. Department of Human Resources 
Vernon Lamont Weaver v. Department of Human Resources 
Jesse B. McAfee v. Department of Human Resources 
William Ellis v. Department of Human Resources 
Henry A. Harriel Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
John H. Fortner Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Mike Johnson V. Department of Human Resources 
Carl E. Crump v. Department of Human Resources 
Herman F. Jacobs Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Barriet Easterling v. Department of Human Resources 
Dorsey L. Johnson v. Department of Human Resources 
Wade A. Burgess v. Department of Human Resources 
Billy Dale Beaney v. Department of Human Resources 
Gregory Harrell v. Department of Human Resources 
James E. Wiggins Sr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Tony A. Draughon v. Department of Human Resources 
Gregory L. Rimmer v. Department of Human Resources 
Ruben Jonathan Bostillo v. Department of Human Resources 
Timothy J. Jones v. Department of Human Resources 
Randall E. Hunter v. Department of Human Resources 
Cyrus R. Luallen v. Department of Human Resources 
Willie Hawkins v. Department of Human Resources 
B.A. Sellen v. Department of Human Resources 
John P. Vadas v. Department of Human Resources 
Gary T. Hudson v. Department of Human Resources 
Alton E. Simpson Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Johnny T. Usher v. Department of Human Resources 
Tim H. Maxwell v. Department of Human Resources 
Charles Darrell Matthews v. Department of Human Resources 
John William Vance Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Bobby R. Sanders v. Department of Human Resources 
Michael S. Rhynes v. Department of Human Resources 
Gerry Bernard Whitfield v. Department of Human Resources 
Denise L. Smith v. Department of Human Resources 



CASE 




DATE OF 


NUMBER 


Al.J 


DECISION 


93 CSE 1442 


Ncsqow 


05/02/94 


93 CSE 1445 


Morgan 


08/10/94 


93 CSE 1448 


Bee Ion 


08/22/94 


93 CSE 1449 


Chess 


11/29/94 


93 CSE 1452 


Chess 


05/16/94 


93 CSE 1453 


Mann 


07/07/94 


93 CSE 1454 


Mann 


10/10/94 


93 CSE 1455 


Gray 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 1460 


Reilly 


04/28/94 


93 CSE 1461 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 1463 


Nesnow 


05/02/94 


93 CSE 1464 


Nesnow 


04/28/94 


93 CSE 1468 


Beelon 


05/24/94 


93 CSE 1469 


Chess 


01/05/95 


93 CSE 1470 


Chess 


09/27/94 


93 CSE 1494 


Gray 


08/30/94 


93 CSE 1495 


Morrison 


04/29/94 


93 CSE 1497 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 1499 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1500 


Bee ton 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1504 


Mann 


11/18/94 


93 CSE 1510 


Gray 


07/07/94 


93 CSE 1512 


Gray 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1514 


Gray 


12/14/94 


93 CSE 1515 


Morrison 


04/21/94 


93 CSE 1517 


Morrison 


08/26/94 


93 CSE 1520 


Morrison 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1521 


Reilly 


04/28/94 


93 CSE 1522 


Reilly 


08/26/94 


93 CSE 1523 


Reilly 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1524 


Reilly 


06/17/94 


93 CSE 1526 


Chess 


11/08/94 


93 CSE 1528 


Reilly 


10/12/94 


93 CSE 1532 


West 


01/31/95 


93 CSE 1537 


Nesnow 


05/19/94 


93 CSE 1538 


Nesnow 


09/23/94 


93 CSE 1539 


Nesnow 


09/26/94 


93 CSE 1540 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1541 


Morgan 


08/04/94 


93 CSE 1542 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1544 


Morgan 


08/04/94 


93 CSE 1545 


Beeton 


09/23/94 


93 CSE 1557 


Chess 


09/27/94 


93 CSE 1560 


Mann 


05/18/94 


93 CSE 1565 


Gray 


09/19/94 


93 CSE 1568 


Morrison 


04/28/94 


93 CSE 1569 


Morrison 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1570 


Morrison 


08/26/94 


93 CSE 1571 


Morrison 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1572 


Reilly 


07/07/94 


93 CSE 1573 


Reilly 


09/23/94 


93 CSE 1574 


Reilly 


09/01/94 


93 CSE 1576 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 1579 


West 


04/19/94 


93 CSE 1583 


Nesnow 


06/16/94 


93 CSE 1585 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1586 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1589 


Beeton 


11/08/94 


93 CSE 1590 


Beeton 


09/23/94 


93 CSE 1591 


Beeton 


04/20/94 


93 CSE 1592 


Chess 


05/19/94 


93 CSE 1594 


Chess 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 1596 


West 


06/13/94 


93 CSE 1597 


Beeton 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1598 


Nesnow 


07/25/94 


93 CSE 1599 


Nesnow 


06/30/94 


93 CSE 1601 


Gray 


10/14/94 


93 CSE 1603 


Chess 


08/18/94 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



1934 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



Brian Gilmore v. Department of Human Resources 
Jesse Jeremy Bullock v. Department of Human Resources 
Jeffrey Alston v. Department of Human Resources 
Ronald E. Loweke v. Department of Human Resources 
Robert D. Parker v. Department of Human Resources 
Charles F. MeKirahan Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Bennie E. Hicks v. Department of Human Resources 
Herbert Council v. Department of Human Resources 
Ricbaid Rachel v. Department of Human Resources 
Alan V. Teubert v. Department of Human Resources 
Henry L. Ward Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
June V. Pettus v. Department of Human Resources 
Benjamin J. Stroud v. Department of Human Resources 
Charles Leonard Fletcher v. Department of Human Resources 
Arthur Glen Long v. Department of Human Resources 
Tony A. Miles v. Department of Human Resources 
Dwayne L. Allen v. Department of Human Resources 
Earl Newkirk Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Reginald Rorie v. Department of Human Resources 
James Edward Penley v. Department of Human Resources 
Joe C. Dean v. Department of Human Resources 
Vernon Bullock v. Department of Human Resources 
Nathaniel L. Hayes v. Department of Human Resources 
Jessie Liles v. Department of Human Resources 
Raymond Scott Eaton v. Department of Human Resources 
Karen M. Stogner v. Department of Human Resources 
Nelson Fowler Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Royston D. Blandford III v. Department of Human Resources 
Kenneth B. Taylor v. Department of Human Resources 
Jeffrey S. Anderson v. Department of Human Resources 
Ronald Erwin Williams v. Department of Human Resources 
Michael L. Franks v. Department of Human Resources 
Dermic W. Craghead v. Department of Human Resources 
Billy D. Gibson v. Department of Human Resources 
Ronald Garrett v. Department of Human Resources 
Ervin C. Harvey v. Department of Human Resources 
Wanda Jean Lee Daniels v. Department of Human Resources 
Charles E. Colston v. Department of Human Resources 
Daron Wayne Smith v. Department of Human Resources 
Maurice Franks v. Department of Human Resources 
John D. Melton v. Department of Human Resources 
Michael Lynn Jones v. Department of Human Resources 
Dennis Kearney v. Department of Human Resources 
Grayson Kelly Jones v. Department of Human Resources 
Larry Hayes v. Department of Human Resources 
Richard Eugene Dunn v. Department of Human Resources 
Warren F. Welch v. Department of Human Resources 
Donas Lynn McDowell v. Department of Human Resources 
Timothy R. Abraham v. Department of Human Resources 
Haywood C. Davis v. Department of Human Resources 
Fred Thompson Jr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Donell Howard v. Department of Human Resources 
Lee Johnson Tillman v. Department of Human Resources 
Haywood C. Davis v. Department of Human Resources 
Ernest F. Andrews v. Department of Human Resources 
Larry Ray v. Department of Human Resources 
Ricky Bynum v. Department of Human Resources 
Russell Pearson v. Department of Human Resources 
Richard D. Rhodes v. Department of Human Resources 
Jasper L. Smallwood v. Department of Human Resources 
Edgar K. Dutch, Sr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Bryan Trevor Lyons v. Department of Human Resources 
Sean Eric Swain v. Department of Human Resources 
Carl Bernard Falls v. Department of Human Resources 
Pervis Graham v. Department of Human Resources 
Russell M. Allen v. Department of Human Resources 
Kirby M. Snider v. Department of Human Resources 
Anthony J. Ceraso v. Department of Human Resources 



CASE 




DATE OF 


NUMBER 


ALJ 


DECISION 


93 CSE 1615 


Chess 


05/13/94 


93 CSE 1632 


Morrison 


06/14/94 


93 CSE 1634 


Morrison 


09/28/94 


93 CSE 1635 


Reilly 


06/17/94 


93 CSE 1637 


Reilly 


06/29/94 


93 CSE 1640 


West 


06/14/94 


93 CSE 1641 


Nesnow 


07/25/94 


93 CSE 1643 


Nesnow 


07/25/94 


93 CSE 1644 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1645 


Morgan 


08/10/94 


93 CSE 1646 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1647 


Bee ton 


10/31/94 


93 CSE 1648 


Bee ton 


05/19/94 


93 CSE 1649 


Bee ton 


07/20/94 


93 CSE 1650 


Chess 


12/05/94 


93 CSE 1654 


Mann 


05/24/94 


93 CSE 1655 


Mann 


05/17/94 


93 CSE 1680 


Morrison 


08/26/94 


93 CSE 1683 


Gray 


10/14/94 


93 CSE 1714 


Mann 


09/26/94 


93 CSE 1715 


Gray 


05/23/94 


93 CSE 1743 


Nesnow 


07/07/94 


93 CSE 1749 


Nesnow 


11/09/94 


93 CSE 1757 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


93 CSE 1761 


Bee ton 


06/29/94 


93 CSE 1785 


Chess 


11/08/94 


94 CSE 0039 


Mann 


10/10/94 


94 CSE 0095 


West 


04/19/94 


94 CSE 0113 


Bee ton 


10/11/94 


94 CSE 0114 


Chess 


11/04/94 


94 CSE 0141 


Bee ton 


09/23/94 


94 CSE 0142 


Chess 


08/16/94 


94 CSE 0163 


Mann 


09/26/94 


94 CSE 0166 


Mann 


09/26/94 


94 CSE 0227 


Reilly 


08/22/94 


94 CSE 0247 


Bee ton 


08/22/94 


94 CSE 0266 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


94 CSE 0280 


Reilly 


08/30/94 


94 CSE 0300 


Gray 


06/27/94 


94 CSE 0310 


West 


10/27/94 


94 CSE 0324 


Nesnow 


07/25/94 


94 CSE 0402 


Morgan 


08/02/94 


94 CSE 0411 


Bee ton 


12/13/94 


94 CSE 0433 


West 


09/15/94 


94 CSE 0456 


Nesnow 


08/22/94 


94 CSE 0494 


West 


07/29/94 


94 CSE 0541 


Mann 


11/09/94 


94 CSE 0580 


Mann 


01/17/95 


94 CSE 0595 


Reilly 


10/12/94 


94 CSE 0596*'° 


Mann 


01/17/95 


94 CSE 0639 


Morrison 


08/31/94 


94 CSE 0672 


Reilly 


10/27/94 


94 CSE 0906 


West 


12/08/94 


94 CSE 0930* 10 


Mann 


01/17/95 


94 CSE 1079 


Chess 


12/29/94 


94 CSE 1090 


Reilly 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 1091 


West 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 1104 


Morrison 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 1107 


Nesnow 


01/09/95 


94 CSE 1110 


Gray 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 1 129 


Gray 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 1136 


Mann 


01/26/95 


94 CSE 1139 


Reilly 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 1144 


Mann 


01/26/95 


94 CSE 1147 


Reilly 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 1152 


Mann 


01/26/95 


94 CSE 1187 


Mann 


01/26/95 


94 CSE 1194 


Chess 


01/12/95 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1935 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



Michael J. Paschall Sr. v. Department of Human Resources 
Larry Eugene Harbaugh v. Department of Human Resources 
Jerry McGIone v. Department of Human Resources 
Amos Sherman v. Department of Human Resources 
Todd W. Lane v. Department of Human Resources 
Donnie R. McKee v. Department of Human Resources 
Roland Reeves v. Department of Human Resources 
Givens Jackson v. Department of Human Resources 
Adolphus Laing v. Department of Human Resources 
Ronald Fred Metzger v. Department of Human Resources 
David C. Riddle v. Department of Human Resources 
James Sisk v. Department of Human Resources 
Raynaid C. Terry v. Department of Human Resources 
Reginald W. Taylor v. Department of Human Resources 
Gary G. Walker v. Department of Human Resources 
Elijah J. Vaughan V. Department of Human Resources 
Edward B. Stamey v. Department of Human Resources 
Danie L. Baker v. Department of Human Resources 
Gerald L. Generette v. Department of Human Resources 
Jane S. Stalcup v. Department of Human Resources 
Larry G. Guthrie v. Department of Human Resources 
Timothy Russom V. Department of Human Resources 
Lois M. Geibel v. Department of Human Resources 



CAS 


E 




DATE OF PUBLISHED DECISION 


NUMBER 


ALJ 


DECISION REGISTER CITATION 


94CSE 


1215 


Mann 


01/30/95 


94CSE 


1223 


Morrison 


01/06/95 


94CSE 


1226 


Reilly 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 


1227 


West 


01/10/95 


94 CSE 


1252 


Reilly 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 


1265 


Nesnow 


01/09/95 


94 CSE 


1268 


Nesnow 


01/09/95 


94 CSE 


1282 


Chess 


01/05/95 


94 CSE 


1299 


Mann 


01/26/95 


94 CSE 


1353 


Reilly 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 


1367 


Chess 


01/12/95 


94 CSE 


1375 


Morrison 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 


1411 


Gray 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 


1418 


Morrison 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 


1422 


Reilly 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 


1428 


West 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 


1448 


West 


01/10/95 


94 CSE 


1453 


West 


01/10/95 


94 CSE 


1469 


Mann 


01/26/95 


94 CSE 


1483 


Reilly 


02/01/95 


94 CSE 1540 


Reilly 


01/06/95 


94 CSE 1575 


West 


01/10/95 


94 CSE 


1581 


Reilly 


01/06/95 



JUSTICE 



Alarm Systems Licensing Board 



Alarm Systems Licensing Board v. George P. Baker 
Patrick P. Sassman v. Alarm Systems Licensing Board 
Christopher Pate v. Alarm Systems Licensing Board 
Paul J. Allen v. Alarm Systems Licensing Board 



93 DOJ 0457 


Nesnow 


03/10/94 


94 DOJ 0709 


Chess 


09/12/94 


94 DOJ 0710 


Chess 


09/12/94 


94 DOJ 0964 


West 


10/31/94 



Private Protective Services Board 



Rex Allen Jefferies v. Private Protective Services Board 
Larry C. Hopkins v. Private Protective Services Board 
Gregory K. Brooks v. Private Protective Services Board 
Stephen M. Rose v. Private Protective Services Board 
Lemuel Lee Clark Jr. v. Private Protective Services Board 
Dexter R. Usher v. Private Protective Services Board 
Frankie L. McKay v. Private Protective Services Board 
John F. Carmiehael v. Private Protective Services Board 
Michael L. Bonner v. Private Protective Services Board 
Edward A- Maguire v. Private Protective Services Board 
Johnnv R- Dollar v. Private Protective Services Board 



93 DOJ 0647 


Reilly 


08/01/94 


93 DOJ 1618 


Morrison 


03/07/94 


94 DOJ 0008 


Nesnow 


06/28/94 


94 DOJ 0359 


Nesnow 


05/19/94 


94 DOJ 0360 


Nesnow 


05/19/94 


94 DOJ 0648 


Reilly 


08/15/94 


94 DOJ 0706 


Chess 


09/09/94 


94 DOJ 0707 


West 


12/01/94 


94 DOJ 0794 


Morrison 


09/14/94 


94 DOJ 0795 


West 


12/09/94 


94 DOJ 0796 


Morrison 


08/24/94 



Training and Standards Division 



Curtiss Lance Poteat v. Criminal Justice Ed. &. Training Stds. Comm. 
Willie David Moon: v. Criminal Justice Ed. Si, Training Stds. Comm. 
Glenn Travis Stout v. Criminal Justice Ed. &. Training Stds. Comm. 
Steven W. Wray v. Sheriffs' Education &. Training Standards Comm. 
J. Stevan North v. Sheriffs* Education & Training Standards Comm. 
Gregory Blake Manning v. Criminal Justice Ed. & Training Stds. Comm. 
Russell Pinkelton Jr. v. Sheriffs' Education & Training Stds. Comm. 
William Franklin Sheetz v. Sheriffs' Education & Training Stds. Comm. 
James M. Buie v. Criminal Justice Ed. & Trarning Stds. Comm. 
Burns E. Anderson v. Criminal Justice Ed. & Training Stds. Comm. 
Nelson Falcon v. Sheriffs' Education & Training Stds. Comm. 
Ralph E. Dent v. Criminal Justice Ed. & Training Stds. Comm. 



93 DOJ 0231 


Chess 


03/28/94 


93 DOJ 1071 


Nesnow 


04/11/94 


93 DOJ 1409 


Gray 


03/03/94 


93 DOJ 1803 


Chess 


06/29/94 


94 DOJ 0040 


Chess 


06/16/94 


94 DOJ 0048 


Gray 


03/29/94 


94 DOJ 01 18 


Gray 


08/10/94 


94 DOJ 0196 


Chess 


06/16/94 


94 DOJ 0401 


Nesnow 


08/26/94 


94 DOJ 0574 


Bee ton 


10/04/94 


94 DOJ 0611 


Mann 


08/12/94 


94 DOJ 0902 


Mann 


01/05/95 



9:3 NCR 218 



9:15 NCR 1234 



LABOR 



Ken Harmon V. Labor. Elevator and Amusement Device Division 
Ronald D. Rumple V. Dept. of Labor, Wage & Hour Division 



93 DOL 1747 

94 DOL 0956 



Collier 
Reilly 



12/27/94 
11/01/94 



1936 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



MORTUARY SCIENCE 

Mortuary Science v. Perry J. Brown, & Brown's Funeral Directors 

PUBLIC EDUCATION 

Donna M. Yedowitz v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education 
Christopher Murch as Guardian Ad Litem for Angela D. Murch, a Minor 

v. Barbara Richaidson, Admin. Except. Child. Prog.; Craven Cry School 

Sys. ; Bradford L. Sneeden, Superintendent 
Nancy Watson v. Boaid of Education 
Janet L. Wilcox v. Carteret County Boaid of Education 
Annice Granville, Phillip J. Granville v. Onslow County Bd. of Education 
Donna M. Yedowitz v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education 
Milt Sherman & Rose Marie Sherman v. Pitt County Board of Education 
Mary Ann Sciullo & Frank Sciullo on behalf of their minor child, 

Samuel W. Sciullo v. State Board of Education 
George W. Stallings & Suzanne H. Stallings v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Boaid of Education 
Wayne Hogwood v. Department of Public Instruction 
Norman Charles Creange v. State Bd. of Ed., Dept. of Public Instruction 
Donald L. Brick house v. Bertie County Schools 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education v. Lemuel and Patricial Gray, 

as Parents of Tanya and Daniel Gray 

STATE HEALTH BENEFITS OFFICE 

Linda C. Campbell v. Teaches & St Emp Major Medical Plan 
Timothy L. Coggins v. Teachers' & St Emp Comp Major Med Plan 
Sandra Tatum v. Teaches & State Employees Comp Major Medical Plan 
P.H.B. v. Teaches & State Employees Comp Major Medical Plan 

STATE PERSONNEL 

Michael L. K. Benson v. Office of State Personnel 

Department of Administration 

Delorcs Y. Bryant v. Department of Administration 
Mores Y. Bryant v. Department of Administration 
elores Y. Bryant v. Department of Administration 

Agricultural and Technical State University 

Linda D. Williams v. Agricultural and Technical State University 
luanita D. Murphy v. Agricultural and Technical State University 
Thomas M. Simpson v. Agricultural and Technical State University 
Peggy L. Cantrell v. A&T State University 
PricellaM. Curtis v. A&T State University Curriculum & Instruction 

Department of Agriculture 

)onald H. Crawford v. Department of Agncultunj 
ielores Y. Bryant v. Department of Agricultuie 



CASE 
NUMBER 



ALJ 



93 BMS 0532 Chess 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



03/28/94 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



92 EDC 1432* 12 


Nesnow 


01/31/95 






93 EDC 0161 


Mann 


11/28/94 






93 EDC 0234 


Chess 


02/28/94 


9:2 NCR 


108 


93 EDC 0451 


Mann 


02/21/94 






93 EDC 0742 


Mann 


08/01/94 


9:11 NCR 


863 


93 EDC 1038* 12 


Nesnow 


01/31/95 






93 EDC 1617 


West 


11/29/94 






94 EDC 0044 


Gray 


07/22/94 






94 EDC 0326 


Mann 


01/05/95 






94 EDC 0653 


West 


10/20/94 


9:16 NCR 


1326 


94 EDC 0737 


Morrison 


11/04/94 






94 EDC 1176 


Gray 


01/25/95 






94 EDC 1629 


Mann 


01/17/95 







93 INS 0410 


Bee ton 


04/22/94 






93 INS 0929 


Morrison 


03/04/94 






94 INS 0028 


Gray 


10/25/94 


9:16 NCR 


1331 


94 INS 0345 


Gray 


08/23/94 


9:12 NCR 


945 



93 OSP 1690 



94 OSP 0108 
94 OSP 0987 



(VC School of the Arts 

lick McCullough v. Search Comm School/Dance, NC School of the Arts 94 OSP 051 1 

Burner Adolescent Treatment Center 

Mvin Lamonte Breeden v. Butner Adolescent Treatment Center 94 OSP 0899 

Catawba County 

iandra J. Cunningham v. Catawba County 93 OSP 1097 



Nesnow 



08/23/94 



94 OSP 0988 


Gray 


01/26/95 


94 OSP 0989 


Gray 


01/26/95 


94 OSP 0990 


Gray 


01/26/95 



93 OSP 0089 


Chess 


03/23/94 






93 OSP 0708 


Morrison 


03/16/94 






93 OSP 1393 


Gray 


03/24/94 






93 OSP 1694 


Reilly 


01/06/95 


9:21 NCR 


1875 


94 OSP 0748 


Gray 


08/17/94 







Reilly 
Gray 



West 



Nesnow 



Reilly 



05/23/94 
01/25/95 



10/14/94 



10/12/94 



04/29/94 



9:4 NCR 



292 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1937 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



CASE 

NUMBKR 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



North Carolina Central University 

Dianna Blaekley v. North Carolina Central University 
Ha-Yilyah Ha-She'B v. NCCU 



89 OSP 0494 
93 OSP 0875 



Chapel Hill & Carrboro City School 

Brenda J. Parker v. Stella Nickerson, Chapel Hill & Carrboro City School 94 OSP 0568 

Cherry Hospital 

Charles F. Fields v. Cherry Hospital 94 OSP 0498 

Gail Marie Rodgers Lincoln v. Cherry Hospital, Goldsboro, NC 27530 94 OSP 0578 



Department of Commerce 



Ruth Daniel-Perry ■ 
Delores Y. Bryant \ 



Department of Commerce 
Department of Commerce 



Department of Correction 

Leland K. Williams v. Department of Correction 

Elroy Lewis v. North Central Area - Dept of Correction, Robert Lewis 

Steven R. Kellison v. Department of Correction 

Bert Esworthy v. Department of Correction 

James J. Lewis v. Department of Correction 

Merron Burrus v. Department of Correction 

Lewis Alsbrook v. Department of Correction, Morrison Youth Institution 

Junius C. Page v. Dept. of Correction, Secy. Franklin Freeman 

Grady Butler, Jr. v. Correction, Div./Prisons, Sampson Cry Ctl Laundry 

Richaid Hopkins v. Department of Correction 

Alfred B. Hunt v. Department of Correction 

Charles Home v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Officer & Dept. of Correction 

Adrian E. Graham v. Intensive Probation/Parole 

E. Wayne Irvin, D.D.S. v. Div. of Prisons, Department of Correction 

Thomas W. Creswell, Lisa K. Bradley v. Department of Correction 

Thomas W. Creswell, Lisa K. Bradley v. Department of Correction 

Barry Lee Clark v. Department of Correction 

Clyde M. Walker v. Department of Correction, Div. of Prisons 

Marietta A. Stancil v. Department of Correction 

Edward E. Hodge v. Department of Correction 

Phyllis K. Cameron v. Department of Correction 

Brenda Yvonne Ewell v. Department of Correction 

Debra D. McKoy v. Department of Correction 

Richard L. Pittman v. Department of Correction 

Eastern Correctional Institution 

Roy A. Keel & Zebedee Taylor v. Eastern Correctional Institution 
Roy A. Keel & Zebedee Taylor v. Eastern Correctional Institution 

Guilford Correctional Center 
Ann R. Williams v. Guilford Correctional Center #4440 

McDowell Correctional Center 
Michael Junior Logan v. Kenneth L. Setzer, McDowell Corr. Cte 

Polk Youth Institution 
Joseph Mark Lewanowicz v. Department of Correction, P?lk Youth Inst. 
Cosmetic Art Examiners 
Mary Quaintance v. N.C. State Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners 



93 OSP 0725 

94 OSP 0983 



Nesnow 
Bee ton 



West 



Morrison 
West 



Chess 
Gray 



09/14/94 
04/13/94 



10/06/94 



06/15/94 
10/07/94 



03/04/94 
02/01/95 



94 OSP 0160* 4 
94 OSP 0256* 4 



94 OSP 0428 



94 OSP 0546 



94 OSP 0926 



94 OSP 0372 



Nesnow 
Nesnow 



West 



Gray 



Nesnow 



Chess 



07/20/94 

07/20/94 



06/22/94 



09/01/94 



11/07/94 



06/14/94 



9:3 NCR 211 



9:1 NCR 



63 



91 OSP 1287 


Chess 


02/22/94 




92 OSP 1770 


Bee ton 


05/24/94 


9:6 NCR 


93 OSP 0283 


Chess 


06/15/94 




93 OSP 0711 


Chess 


04/21/94 




93 OSP 1121 


West 


08/31/94 




93 OSP 1145 


West 


09/30/94 




93 OSP 1739 


West 


07/20/94 




93 OSP 1794 


Mann 


07/08/94 




93 OSP 1804 


West 


11/30/94 




94 OSP 0041 


Chess 


06/16/94 




94 OSP 0243 


Reilly 


04/20/94 




94 OSP 0244 


Nesnow 


06/16/94 




94 OSP 0261 


Morrison 


04/26/94 




94 OSP 0334 


Chess 


10/03/94 




94 OSP 0407* 


Chess 


09/28/94 




94 OSP 0408* 


Chess 


09/28/94 




94 OSP 0437 


Chess 


09/12/94 




94 OSP 0476 


West 


12/30/94 




94 OSP 0652 


West 


11/22/94 




94 OSP 0829 


Nesnow 


09/15/94 




94 OSP 0896 


Nesnow 


10/27/94 




94 OSP 0959 


Gray 


12/12/94 




94 OSP 0960 


Gray 


12/12/94 




94 OSP 1021 


West 


01/27/95 





395 



1938 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



CASE 
NUMBER 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



Department of Crime Control and Public Safety 

Don R. Massenburg v. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety 

Fred L. Kearney v. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety 

J.D. Booth v. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety 

Sylvia Nance v. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety 

Jerry Lewis v. Dept. of Crime Control & Public Safety, Highway Patrol 

Anthony R. Butler v. Highway Patrol 

Ruth P. Belcher v. Crime Control & Public Safety, State Highway Patrol 

Lewis G. Baker v. Crime Control & Public Safety, Office Adj . General 

William Smith v. State Highway Patrol 

Delores Y. Bryant v. Crime Control & Public Safety 

Dorothea Dix Hospital 

Bettie Louise Boykin v. Dorothea Dix Hospital 

Ernest Akpaka v. Scott Stephens, Dorothea Dix Hospital 

Durham County Health Department 

Lylla Denell Stockton v. Durham County Health Department 

East Carolina School of Medicine 

Gloria Dianne Burroughs v. ECU School of Medicine 
Lillie Mercer Atkinson v. ECU, Dept of Comp. Med., 

Dr. William H. Pryor Jr., Sheila Church 
William Lee Perkins v. ECU Sch of Med. Comp. Med. L. Blankenship, 

Tammy Barnes, Wm Pyroe 

East Carolina University 

Lois Toler Wilson v. East Carolina University 

Elizabeth City State University 

John Franklin Simpson & Wayne Tyrone Barclift v. Eliz. City St. U. 
John Franklin Simpson & Wayne Tyrone Barclift v. Eliz. City St. U. 
James Charles Knox v. Elizabeth City State University 

Employment Security Commission of North Carolina 

Dan G. Smith v. Employment Security Commission of N.C. 
Rejeanne B. LeFrancois v. Emplcyment Security Commission of N.C. 

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 

Steven P. Karasinski v. Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 

Division of Marine Fisheries 

William D. Nicely v. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources 

Fayettevitte State University 

Bessie Carpenter Locus v. Fayetteville State University 
Roscoe L. Williams v. Fayetteville State University 

Department of Human Resources 

Inez Latta v. Department of Human Resources 

Charla S. Davis v. Department of Human Resources 

Rose Mary Taylor v. Department of Human Resources, Murdoch Center 

David R. Rodgers v. Jimmy Summerville, Stonewall Jackson School 

Dr. Patricia Sokol v. James B. Hunt, Governor and Human Resources 

Bruce B. Blackmon, M.D. v. DHR, Disability Determination Services 



90 OSP 0239 


Chess 


04/28/94 


91 OSP 0401 


West 


03/18/94 


92 OSP 0953 


Morrison 


10/18/94 


92 OSP 1463 


Reilly 


03/21/94 


93 OSP 1058 


West 


12/30/94 


93 OSP 1079 


West 


08/30/94 


94 OSP 0190 


Gray 


09/06/94 


94 OSP 0572 


Mann 


07/12/94 


94 OSP 0816 


Morrison 


09/09/94 


94 OSP 0986 


Gray 


12/14/94 



94 OSP 0831 
94 OSP 0962 



93 OSP 1780 



Nesnow 
Gray 



Gray 



94 OSP 0143 



Gray 



93 OSP 0356* 13 Mann 

93 OSP 0358* 13 Mann 

94 OSP 0207 Gray 



93 OSP 0865 
93 OSP 1069 



93 OSP 0940 



92 OSP 1454 



86 OSP 0202 
93 OSP 0487 



Bee ton 
West 



West 



Bee ton 



Morrison 
West 



09/28/94 
11/01/94 



05/25/94 



93 OSP 0909 


Bee ton 


10/26/94 


94 OSP 0162 


Gray 


10/06/94 


94 OSP 0741 


West 


09/30/94 



12/06/94 



01/30/95 
01/30/95 
06/17/94 



11/23/94 
04/08/94 



09/02/94 



05/04/94 



11/18/94 
06/22/94 



93 OSP 0830 


Bee ton 


03/28/94 


93 OSP 1762 


Gray 


03/03/94 


93 OSP 0047 


Gray 


05/06/94 


94 OSP 0087 


Chess 


03/16/94 


94 OSP 0357 


Chess 


08/22/94 


94 OSP 0410 


Nesnow 


09/14/94 



9:19 NCR 1591 



9:5 NCR 333 



9:18 NCR 1500 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1939 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



CASE 
NUMBER 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



Craven County Department of Social Services 

Shirley A. Holland v. Craven Cty. Dept. /Social Services & Craven Cty. 
Nettie Jane Godwin (Lawhorn) v. Craven Cty. DSS & Craven Cty. 
Violet P. Kelly v. Craven Cty. Dept. of Social Services &. Craven Cty. 
June Carol Jerkins v. Craven County Department of Social Services 

Durham County Department of Social Services 

Belinda F. Jones v. Daniel Hudgins, Durham Cty Dept of Social Svcs 
Ralph A. Williams v. Durham County Department of Social Services 

Haywood County Department of Social Services 
Dorothy Morrow v. Haywood County Department of Social Services 

Pamlico County Department of Social Services 
Mrs. Dietra C. Jones v. Pamlico Department of Social Services 

Lee County Health Department 
James Shacklebn v. Lee County Health Department 

Lenoir County Health Department 
Nino A. Coley v. Lenoir County Health Department 

Medical Assistance 

Delores Y. Bryant v. DHR, Division of Medical Assistance 
Delores Y. Bryant v. DHR, Division of Medical Assistance 



93 OSP 1606 


Gray 


07/01/94 


93 OSP 1607 


Gray 


07/18/94 


93 OSP 1805 


Reilly 


07/05/94 


94 OSP 0758 


Nesnow 


01/11/95 



93 OSP 0728 

94 OSP 0167 



94 OSP 0186 



94 OSP 0251 



94 OSP 0344 



94 OSP 0503 



94 OSP 0991 
94 OSP 0992 



Chess 
Reilly 



West 



Chess 



Gray 



West 



Gray 
Gray 



04/11/94 
09/13/94 



06/17/94 



08/09/94 



08/17/94 



01/13/95 



10/27/94 
10/27/94 



Mental Health/Mental Retardation 
Yvonne G. Johnson v. Blue Ridge Mental Health 93 OSP 1604 Becton 03/18/94 

Sandhills Center for Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Services 
Steve LeGrand Avant v. Sandhills Ctr. for MH/DD/SAS 94 OSP 0655 Chess 12/30/94 

Services for the Blind 
Donna L. Williams v. DHR, Division of Services for the Blind 93 OSP 1610 Morrison 10/25/94 

Wake County Mental Health , Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Services 



Julia Morgan Brannon v. Wake County MH/DD/SAS 94 OSP 0214 Reilly 

Wtyne County Department of Social Services 



Brently Jean Carr, Nancy Carol Carter v. Wayne County/^Aayne 

County Department of Social Services 
Brently Jean Carr, Nancy Carol Carter v. Wayne CountyAVayne 

County Department of Social Services 



94 OSP 0539*" Mann 
94 OSP 0540* 8 Mann 



Youth Senices 
David R. Rodgers v. DHR, Div./Youlh Services, Stonewall Jackson Sch. 94 OSP 0306 Chess 

Justice 
Delores Y. Bryant v. Department of Justice 94 OSP 0984 Gray 



04/14/94 



11/07/94 
11/07/94 



10/24/94 



10/27/94 



9:9 NCR 655 



9:22 NCR 1949 



1940 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



Public Instruction 

Elaine M. Sills v. Department of Public Instruction 
Delores Y. Bryant v. Department of Public Instruction 
Delores Y. Bryant v. Department of Public Instruction 

Real Estate Appraisal Board 

Earl Hansford Grubbs v. Appraisal Boaid 

Smoky Mountain Center 

Betty C. Bradley v. Smoky Mountain Center 

N.C. State University 

Laura K. Reynolds v. N.C. State University - Dept. of Public Safety 

Ashraf G. Khalil v. N.C.S.U. 

Robin Lazenby Boyd v. NC State University Human Res. /Seafood Lab 

Department of Transportation 

Phyllis W. Newnam v. Department of Transportation 

Glenn I. Hodge Jr. v. Samuel Hunt, Secy. Dept. of Transportation 

Glenn I. Hodge Jr. v. Samuel Hunt, Sec'y. Dept. of Transportation 

Betsy Johnston Powell v. Department of Transportation 

Arnold Craig v. Samuel Hunt, Secretary Department of Transportation 

Susan H. Cole v. Department of Transportation, Div. of Motor Vehicles 

Susan H. Cole v. Department of Transportation, Div. of Motor Vehicles 

Clyde Lem Hairston v. Department of Transportation 

Angela Trueblood Westmoreland v. Department of Transportation 

Bobby R. Mayo v. Department of Transportation 

Tony Lee Curtis v. Department of Transportation 

Darrell H. Wise v. Department of Transportation 

Henry C. Puegh v. Department of Transportation 

Kenneth Ray Harvey v. Department of Transportation 

Bobby R. Mayo v. Transportation, Ferry Div. Jerry W. Gaskill, Director 

Jean Williams v. Department of Transportation 

R. Stanley Morgan v. Department of Transportation 

Bobby R. Mayo v. Department of Transportation 

A. Dean Bridges v. Department of Transportation 

Michael Bryant v. Department of Transportation 

Pearlie M. Simuel-Johnson v. Department of Transportation 

Freddie R. Lewis, Jr. v. Department of Transportation 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

William Paul Fearrington v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
Paulette M. McKoy v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
Paulette M. McKoy v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
Eric W. Browning v. UNC-Chapel Hill 
Beth Anne Miller, R.N.-C v. UNC James A. Taylor Std Health Svc. 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 

James S. Wilkinson v. UNCG Police Agency 

UNC Hospitals 

Barry Alonzo Nichols v. UNC Hospitals Central Dist. Sect. 

Wake County School System 

Lula Mae Freeman v. Wake County School System 

The Whitaker School 

Dwayne R. Cooke v. The Whitaker School 



CASE 
NUMBER 



94OSP0781 
94OSP0981 
94 OSP 0982 



94 OSP 0753 



93 OSP 1505 



92 OSP 0828 

93 OSP 1666 

94 OSP 0779 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



Gray 10/06/94 

Gray 11/28/94 

Gray 11/28/94 



Nesnow 



Becton 



08/24/94 



09/26/94 



Morgan 05/26/94 

Nesnow 09/19/94 

Nesnow 12/01/94 



91 OSP 0905 


Reilly 


10/19/94 


92 OSP 0380* 7 


Becton 


10/24/94 


92 OSP 0792* 7 


Becton 


10/24/94 


93 OSP 0925 


Morrison 


05/03/94 


94 OSP 0800 


Nesnow 


09/26/94 



93 OSP 0850 Chess 08/22/94 



94 OSP 0509 Morrison 06/15/94 



94 OSP 0576 Morrison 06/28/94 



94 OSP 0328 Chess 06/02/94 



9:14 NCR 1141 



92 OSP 1799 


Morgan 


08/11/94 






93 OSP 0297* 1 


Morrison 


03/10/94 


9:1 NCR 


60 


93 OSP 0500* 1 


Morrison 


03/10/94 


9:1 NCR 


60 


93 OSP 0550 


Morrison 


03/28/94 






93 OSP 0586 


Nesnow 


07/11/94 






93 OSP 0908 


Morrison 


07/15/94 






93 OSP 0908 


Morrison 


10/07/94 






93 OSP 0944 


Chess 


02/28/94 






93 OSP 1001 


Morrison 


09/30/94 


9:14 NCR 


1136 


93 OSP 1004 


Nesnow 


09/01/94 






93 OSP 1037 


Reilly 


08/26/94 






93 OSP 1353 


Gray 


07/26/94 






93 OSP 1710 


Nesnow 


05/24/94 






94 OSP 0423 


Morrison 


08/17/94 






94 OSP 0479 


Nesnow 


01/24/95 






94 OSP 0502 


Morrison 


11/22/94 


9:18 NCR 


1504 


94 OSP 0586** 


Reilly 


12/13/94 






94 OSP 0632 


Gray 


08/23/94 






94 OSP 0654** 


Reilly 


12/13/94 






94 OSP 0728 


Chess 


08/15/94 






94 OSP 0844 


Gray 


11/14/94 






94 OSP 1023 


Reilly 


01/04/95 







9:5 NCR 



342 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1941 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



AGENCY 



CASE 
NUMBER 



ALJ 



DATE OF 
DECISION 



PUBLISHED DECISION 
REGISTER CITATION 



Wtnston-SaUm State University 

David Phillip Davis v. Winston-Salem Stale University 

Tonny M. Jarrett v. Winston-Salem State University Campus Police 

STATE TREASURER 



93 OSP 0947 
93 OSP 0953 



Reilly 
Reilly 



09/28/94 
09/12/94 



Retirement Systems Division 

Molly Wiebenson v. Bd. /Trustees/Teachers' & State Employees' Ret. Sys. 
Judith A. Dorman v. Bd . /Trustees/Teachers' & State Employees' Ret. Sys. 
Nathan Fields v. Bd./Trustees/TeacherB' & State Employees' Ret. Sys. 
John C. Russell v. Bd. /Trustees/Teachers' & State Employees' Ret. Sys. 
Marion Franklin Howell v. Teachers' & Slate Employees' Retirement Sys. 
Robert A. Slade v. Bd./Trustees/N.C. Local Govtl. Emp. Ret. System 
Connie B. Grant v. Bd. /Trustees/Teachers' & State Employees' Ret. Sys. 
James E. Walker, Ind. &. Admin for the Estate of Sarah S. Walker v. Bd./ 

Trustees/N.C. Local Govt. Emp. Ret. System 
Elizabeth M. Dudley v. Bd.nrusteesATeachers' & State Emps' Ret. Sys. 
Kenneth A. Glenn v. Bd.ATnJsteesneachers' & St Employees' Ret. Sys. 
Joseph Fulton v. Bd./TrusteesAreacherB' & State Employees' Ret. Sys. 
Deborah W Stewart v. Bd./Trustees/TeacherB' & State Employees' 

Ret. Sys. and Anthony L. Hope & Derrick L. Hope 

TRANSPORTATION 



92 DST 0015 


Morgan 


05/26/94 


9:6 NCR 


403 


92 DST 0223 


Morgan 


08/11/94 






93 DST 0161 


Morrison 


05/18/94 






93 DST 0164 


West 


03/07/94 






93 DST 0475 


Nesnow 


08/04/94 


9:12 NCR 


941 


93 DST 0785 


Bee ton 


03/18/94 


9:1 NCR 


68 


93 DST 0883 


Chess 


06/15/94 






93 DST 1054 


Bee ton 


05/31/94 


9:7 NCR 


490 


93 DST 1474 


Nesnow 


03/28/94 






93 DST 1612 


Morrison 


05/18/94 






93 DST 1731 


Bee ton 


05/25/94 






94 DST 0045 


Nesnow 


07/25/94 


9:10 NCR 


768 



Taylor & Murphy Construction Co. , Inc. v. Department of Transportation 93 DOT 1404 
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

Robert Tolbert v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 94 USE 1410 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



Chess 08/24/94 



Gray 12/14/94 



Heather Anne Porter v. State Residence Committee 
Nixon Omolodun v. UNC Physicians and Associates 



92 UNC 0799 
94 UNC 0295 



Nesnow 08/23/94 

Chess 06/27/94 



1942 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 





CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 








STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
COUNTY OF WAKE 


IN THE OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 

94 DOA 0516 






CAROLINA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH ) 

COMPANY ) 

Petitioner, ) 








v. 


) RECOMMENDED DECISION 






NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ) 

ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF ) 

PURCHASE AND CONTRACT ) 

Respondent. ) 








This matter was heard by Fred Gilbert Morrison Jr., Senior Administrative Law Judge, 
Administrative Hearings, on September 26, 27, and 28, 1994, in Raleigh, North Carolina. Foil 
hearing, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The record 
December 15, 1994. 


Office 
owing 
closed 


of 
the 

on 




APPEARANCES 








For the Petitioner: 


Robert Carl Voigt 

Senior Attorney 

Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co. 

14111 Capital Boulevard 

Wake Forest, NC 27587-5900 








For the Respondent: 


Teresa L. White & T. Buie Costen 
Attorney General's Office 









N.C. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 

ISSUE 

Whether Respondent Department of Administrative erred or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not 
approving Petitioner's proposal for a "Site or Room Integrator for Two- Way Interactive Video Tele- 
Classrooms that will be Interconnected to the N.C.I.H.". 

OPINION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Based on competent evidence admitted at the hearing and matters officially noted, the Administrative 
Law Judge makes the following: 

STIPULATED FACTS 

Petitioner, Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company, is a North Carolina corporation with its 
Administrative Headquarters located at 141 1 1 Capital Boulevard, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587- 
5900. Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint 
Corporation, a nationally and internationally known telecommunications company. 



1-22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1943 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



2. Petitioner provides regulated telephone service in all or portions of 50 counties in North Carolina. 
In addition to providing regulated telephone service, Petitioner markets various types of telecommuni- 
cations equipment throughout much of the State of North Carolina. 

3. In 1993, the North Carolina Department of Administration (DOA) issued Request for Proposal (RFP) 
No. 306008 entitled "Site or Room Integrator for Two-Way Interactive Video Tele-Classrooms that 
will be Interconnected to the N.C.I.H." requesting proposals for the public schools and community 
colleges throughout the State of North Carolina. 

4. Request for Proposal No. 306008 included the following language: 

The final list of equipment and a basic classroom configuration is included 
with this RFP. This list does not specify any manufacturers or recommen- 
dations and vendors should not mistake the list as the only way the tele- 
classrooms can be configured. The intent is only to be sure the classrooms 
and conference rooms have the basic equipment needed to interconnect and 
utilize the N.C.I.H. 

5. Request for Proposal No. 306008 also included the following language: 

Factors other than cost will be considered in evaluating the proposals and 
awarding this contract. Job requirements, efficiency in which equipment 
offered operates, hard wearing capabilities, overall compatibility with existing 
and on-order equipment, and overall performance during demonstration will 
be major considerations in determining the award of this contract. 

6. In response to RFP No. 306008, Petitioner submitted a timely Proposal dated January 14, 1994. 
(Because Petitioner is a subsidiary of Sprint Corporation, the Proposal was submitted under the name 
"Sprint/Carolina Telephone.") Petitioner's Proposal was submitted in two parts — a Cost Proposal 
and a Technical Proposal. The total price per room as per Petitioner's Proposal dated January 14, 
1994, was $46,530.00 per room. 

7. Petitioner's Proposal dated January 14, 1994, included a designated Model No. and descriptive 
literature on a 32" Sony Color TV monitor at a price of $888.00 per unit and also stated that, "In 
support of complete technical compliance, a conventional 35" display may be included as an optional 
substitution." However, Petitioner's Proposal did not designate a Model No. or include descriptive 
literature on a 35" color monitor. 

8. On February 17, 1994, Respondent issued a "Technical Evaluation/Final Report" designating six 
vendors which had been determined technically qualified to perform RFP No. 306008. Petitioner was 
among the six technically qualified vendors listed on the Technical Evaluation/Final Report dated 
February 17, 1994. 

9. Persons who participated in evaluating the various Proposals received by Respondent on RFP No. 
306008 included the following: 

Linda DeGrand 
Joe Alley 
Joe Gray 
Kevin McDevitt 
Mickey Munns 

None of the foregoing persons (or any other representative of Respondent) contacted Petitioner at any 
stage of the evaluation process to question or clarify any aspect of Petitioner's Proposal. However, 
members of the evaluation team did contact GTE, Telemetries, AT&T, Telex (Pierce-Phelps), and 



1944 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



Sigcom to clarify aspects of their respective Proposals. 

10. On February 24, 1994, Respondent issued a "Canvass of Bids for Award" listing three approved 
vendors for the Video Tele-Classrooms project, and prices associated with each of the three approved 
vendors. Petitioner was not among the three approved vendors listed on the Canvass of Bids for 
Award dated February 24, 1994. 

11. A memo dated February 22, 1994, from Linda DeGrand to Mickey Munns cites the following specific 
reason for Petitioner being excluded from the approved vendors: 

Upon review of the cost proposal of Sprint Carolina Telephone it was 
necessary to disqualify their proposal for failure to quote a price on required 
RFP item 5 — 35" color monitor. 

A letter dated March 9, 1994, from Mickey Munns to J.M. Martin, Jr. restates the same specific 
reason for Petitioner being excluded: 

Based upon the above we continue to support the February 22, 1994 
statement of Linda K. DeGrand, Chair - NCIH Committee to Mickey Munns 
of State Purchase and Contract: "Upon review of the Cost Proposal of 
Sprint/Carolina Telephone, it was necessary to disqualify their proposal for 
failure to quote a price as required, RFP Item 5 - 35" color monitor. " 

12. The prices for the three approved vendors as per the "Canvass of Bids for Award" dated February 24, 
1994, were as follows: 

Long Communications Group $39,875. 00/RM. APPROX. 

Pierce-Phelps, Inc. $44,753. 00/RM. APPROX. 

KCH & Associates $46,854.00/RM. APPROX. 

However, the prices quoted for Pierce-Phelps, Inc. and KCH & Associates in the letter dated March 
9, 1994, from Mickey Munns to J.M. Martin, Jr. are as follows: 

Pierce-Phelps, Inc.* $55,065.00/RM. APPROX. 

KCH & Associates** $57,267.00/RM. APPROX. 

* We were not able to identify the source of the $963.00 difference between your stated calculation 
of $56,028 for Pierce-Phelps and that stated above. 

** There is a discrepancy of $5,100.00 between the KCH price quoted above and your calculation of 
$62,367.00. This apparently results from your inclusion of KCH's maintenance quote, which all 
vendors were requested to quote for the period following warranty. This quote, however, was not used 
in the calculation of the base price for any vendor. Further, it apparently was not a price included in 
your calculations for Telemetries or GTE quoted $4,500.00 per year per site and $7,750.00 per room 
per year respectively for this item. 

13. In its Proposal dated January 14, 1994, Petitioner specifically requested a "side by side" comparison 
of 35" and 32" monitors. Also, Petitioner's letter dated February 28, 1994, from J.M. Martin, Jr. to 
Ed Little included the following statement: 

We gave the option to the State to look at a 32" monitor or substitute a 35" 
monitor, presumably following a demonstration of monitors from the various 
vendors as required per page 4 of the State's RFP under Award Criteria. 

14. Petitioner has specifically objected in writing on at least three occasions to Respondent's conclusion 



9:22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1945 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



that, "Upon review of the cost proposal of Sprint/Carolina Telephone, it was necessary to disqualify 
their proposal for failure to quote a price as required, RFP Item 5 - 35" color monitor." Those three 
written objections were the following: 

February 28, 1994 Letter from Joe Martin to Ed Little 

March 15, 1994 Formal Notice of Protest to DOA 

April 29, 1994 Petition for Contested Case Hearing 

In each instance, Petitioner cited and documented its reasons for the objection. 

15. Subsequent to the "Canvass of Bids for Award" dated February 24, 1994, and the public announcement 
of approved vendors on February 25, 1994, Petitioner has offered 35" color TV monitors at a price 
of $888.00 per unit on three separate occasions. Those three occasions were the following: 

March 15, 1994 Formal Notice of Protest to DOA 

(RCA Model No. and Literature 
Provided) 

April 29, 1994 Petition for Contested Case Hearing 

(RCA Model No. and Literature 
Provided) 

August 3, 1994 Response to Request for Production 

of Documents (Toshiba Model No. and 
Literature Provided; RCA Model 
Discontinued) 

ADJUDICATED FACTS 



16. A booklet (entitled "Doing Business with the State of North Carolina: A Guide for Vendors" 
distributed by Respondent to businesses competing for State contracts includes the following language 
in describing a "Request for Proposal": 

Request for Proposal (RFP) : A Request for Proposal may be used in 
establishing contracts which seek creativity or different ways of accomplish- 
ing a task. 

17. Item 12 of Respondent's General Contract Terms provides that: 

Any deviation from specifications indicated herein must be clearly pointed 
out; otherwise, it will be considered that items offered are in strict compli- 
ance with these specifications, and successful bidder will be held responsible 
therefor. Deviations must be explained in detail on an attached sheet(s). 

18. Petitioner's technical response to the specification concerning a 35" color monitor was as follows: 

The Sony KV32S10 monitor is a 34 inch CRT yielding a viewable diagonal 
dimension of 32 inches. This is the only large screen monitor to provide the 
unique benefits of the Trinitron design. Conservatively rated at 500 lines 
of resolution, the CRT is perfectly flat in the vertical plane and very slightly 
cylindrical across the front viewing area. This shape allows the use of an 
aperture grille rather than a conventional shadow mask. The benefits of this 



1946 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



design are minimum glare, superior corner focus, and virtual immunity to 
"doming". "Doming" is caused by the uneven tension inherent in the design 
of conventional "shadow mask" CRTs and is of particular concern in 
distance education environments. This phenomenon is characterized by 
blotches of blue or yellow which appear on conventional monitors when a 
white image, such as typical graphics image is left statically on a display for 
several minutes. ALL non-Trinitron large screen monitors suffer from this 
problem. SCT encourages a side by side comparison to demonstrate the 
technical superiority of the proposed 32" monitor in the demanding 
environment of tele-learning. In support of complete technical compliance, 
a conventional, 35" display may be included as an optional substitution. 

9. In its cost proposal, Petitioner listed a price of $888 per monitor for this item, again indicating the 
ony 32". The evaluation team flagged this item, but did not further investigate it, request a demonstration, 
>r contact Petitioner as to whether the same price would apply for a 35" monitor pursuant to the technical 
esponse explanation and request. 

>0. Respondent's rule concerning errors in bids provides that: 

When a bid appears to contain an obvious error or otherwise where an error 
is suspected, the circumstances may be investigated and then may be 
considered and acted upon under the procedure for canvassing bids and 
awarding contracts; any action taken, however, shall not prejudice the rights 
of the public or other bidders. Where bids are submitted substantially in 
accordance with the invitation but are not entirely clear as to intent or to 
some particular fact or where there are other ambiguities, clarification may 
be sought and accepted provided that, in doing so, no change is permitted 
which would improve the competitive position of the bid and alter the award 
of the contract. 

!l. Respondent also has a rule which provides as follows: 

In determining the award of contracts, bona fide proposals will be considered 
and evaluated as provided by statute and applicable rules and regulations. . 
. . Vendor participation may be sought where some clarification of a proposal 
is necessary for proper evaluation; and in doing so, no improvement in the 
bidder's competitive position is permissible. 

12. Seeking clarification from Petitioner on this item would not have prejudiced the rights of the public 
>r other bidders, nor allowed any improvement in Petitioner's competitive position, as its bid was set at 
146,530 per room. Petitioner could not have lowered its price of $888 for the 35", and any proposed increase 
vould have damaged its competitive position. 

!3. Petitioner's response to the RFP was very acceptable to Respondent in all areas except the 35" monitor, 
["he 32" monitor is substantially equal to a 35" monitor and could be superior according to Petitioner. 

14. Respondent did not give fair and careful consideration to Petitioner's response concerning the 35" 
monitor. 

15. Adding Petitioner to the list of approved vendors would be advantageous to the State. 
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: 



h22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1947 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1 . The parties are properly before the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Office has jurisdiction 
to hear this matter and issue a recommended decision to the Secretary of Administration. 

2. Respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not giving fair and careful consideration to the 
proposal of Petitioner which clearly provided for a 35" or 32" color TV monitor, with the Petitioner 
contending the 32" monitor was superior. See White v. North Carolina Dept. of Env't, Health, and 
Natural Resources , _ _ N.C. App. , S.E.2d (1995), filed January 3, 1995. 

3. Petitioner's proposal substantially complied with Respondent's Request for Proposals. 

4. Respondent erred in excluding Petitioner from the approved vendors under RFP No. 306008. 

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Administrative Law Judge makes 
the following: 

RECOMMENDED DECISION 

1. That Respondent add the name of Petitioner, Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company, d/b/a 
Sprint/Carolina Telephone, to the list of approved vendors at a price per room of $46,530.00 (which 
includes 35" color TV monitors). 

2. That Respondent promptly issue and distribute to all potential purchasers a revised/corrected list of 
approved vendors under RFP No. 306008. 

ORDER 

It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative 
Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 
150B-36(b). 

NOTICE 

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an 
opportunity to file exceptions to this recommended decision and to present written arguments to those in the 
agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a). 

The agency is required by G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to 
furnish a copy to the parties' attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings. 

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Department 
of Administration. 



This the 21st day of January, 1995. 



Fred G. Morrison Jr. 

Senior Administrative Law Judge 



1948 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
COUNTY OF RICHMOND 



IN THE OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 

94 OSP 0655 



STEVE LeGRAND AVANT, 
Petitioner, 



v. 



SANDHILLS CENTER FOR MENTAL 
HEALTH, DEVELOPMENTAL 
DISABILITIES & SUBSTANCE 
ABUSE SERVICES, 
Respondent. 



RECOMMENDED DECISION 



For Petitioner: 



This matter was heard in Rockingham, North Carolina on October 10 and 11, 1994, by Administrative 
Law Judge Sammie Chess, Jr. The Petitioner initiated this contested case on June 6, 1994, in order to appeal 
the Oral Warning, Written Warning and suspensions issued by the Respondent's Appeals Committee. 

ISSUE 

Whether the Respondent agency erred in its decision to issue an Oral Warning, Written Warning and 
suspend Petitioner regarding the incidents of February 13, 1994 and April 10, 1994. 

APPEARANCES 

Stephan R. Futrelle 

LEATH BYNUM KITCHIN & NEAL, PA. 

Attorney at Law 

Post Office Box 1657 

Rockingham, North Carolina 28379 

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr. 

CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND PETERSEN & SMITH 

Attorney at Law 

Post Office Box 1468 

Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388 

Based on a preponderance of the evidence admitted into the record of this case and arguments presented 
by counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent at the hearing, the undersigned makes the 
following: 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1 . All parties are properly before the undersigned, and the Office of Administrative Hearings has 
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 

2. Petitioner filed his Petition for a Contested Case Hearing on June 6, 1994, to appeal the May 
23, 1994, decision of an Appeals Committee. 

3. The Petitioner has been a permanent Habilitation Relief Assistant with Sandhills Center since 
July 14, 1992. He was a probationary Habilitation Relief Assistant from December 4, 1991, until he was 



For Respondent: 



9:22 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



1949 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



elevated to permanent status. Petitioner also has a full-time job with the North Carolina Department of 
Corrections and is a former police officer with the Rockingham County Police Department. 

4. At all times at issue, the Petitioner worked part-time at the Sandhills Center's Mallard Lane 
group home for adults with various physical, mental and emotional disabilities. 

5. On August 19, 1993, Petitioner attended a "Protective Intervention Course" (herein "PIC") 
conducted by one of the Respondent's staff employees, Pat McDonald. The PIC course was intended to 
provide staff members with instructions for handling the Mallard Lane clients in a variety of situations. During 
that course. Petitioner was provided a "Practicum Handout" that outlined the instructions, but Petitioner was 
also instructed that the handout was not intended to be all-inclusive. Staff members were regularly advised 
that while the PIC handout was intended to provide an outline of the primary procedures for handling clients 
in the described situations, circumstances might arise that are not necessarily controlled by PIC; and in those 
circumstances, the staff members were instructed that they should use their common sense and to "do the best 
they can." 

6. On or about November 17, 1993, Petitioner received a copy of the "Staff Rules" that 
provided, in part, "Unless it is during designated sleep time, staff are not to sleep in the home, rest on the 
couch, etc. close eyes for rest period or give any appearance of 'sleep like' behavior. " 

7. Before February 13, 1994, Respondent had not distributed any memoranda or other documents 
that defined "sleep-like behavior" or what constituted "giv[ing] any appearance of 'sleep-like' behavior;" nor 
had staff persons, including Petitioner, been given any oral instructions about what constituted "sleep-like 
behavior" or "giv[ing] any appearance of 'sleep-like' behavior." 

8. Before February 13, 1994, the Respondent had not distributed any memoranda or other written 
or printed documents that prohibited staff persons from placing chairs or other obstacles between the kitchen 
and the hallway that leads to the Mallard Lane office area during night hours; nor had staff persons, including 
Petitioner, been given any oral instructions against placing chairs or obstacles between the kitchen and that 
hallway during night hours. 

9. There is no fire exit in the Mallard Lane office area. The only exit in that office is a locked 
door that leads from the office to the outside; and it is not a designated fire exit. Moreover, the door from the 
office to the kitchen hallway remains locked at night. 

10. Before February 13, 1994, clients at Mallard Lane occasionally wandered around the home 
during the night; and the office area beyond the kitchen in an area where they are told not to go without a staff 
person. Employees like Petitioner have not been instructed by Respondent that Mallard Lane clients should 
not wander in that area during the night. 

11. The Mallard Lane client designated as "L" is a 43-year old female with a history of behavior 
problems that have included: impulsivity, wandering off, inappropriate language (cursing), yelling/screaming, 
aggression, property destruction, threatening others, soiling self, harassing others, and accusing staff of 
mistreatment and taking her possessions. She is presently functioning in the Mild Range of Mental Retardation 
intellectually. She is approximately (5) five feet, six (6) inches tall and weighs approximately one hundred 
fifty-six (156) pounds. "L" also suffers from left-side hemiparesis. 

12. At some time before February 13, 1994, Sharon Rickman, the Respondent's Mallard Lane 
supervisor, began calling other Mallard Lane employees and asking them if Petitioner had mistreated or abused 
"L" to suffer carpet burns; and those employees advised Rickman that Petitioner had not mistreated or abused 
"L" or caused "L" to suffer carpet burns, but that "L's" carpet burns were probably self-inflicted by "L" during 
one of her many violent episodes. 

13. There is no evidence that Rickman asked any of the employees identified in the immediately 
preceding paragraph whether any other employees had mistreated or abused "L"; and there is no evidence that 



1950 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



Rickman had any reasonable cause to believe that Petitioner had caused "L's" carpet bums or had otherwise 
mistreated or abused "L" or caused her mental anguish. 

14. Before February 13, 1994, Respondent's personnel manager (Sharon Patterson) knew of 
Rickman's telephone calls to Respondent's employees in relation to Petitioner. 

15. On or about February 13, 1994, Rickman reported to Patterson that she had looked through 
the front window of Mallard Lane and saw Petitioner sleeping, when he was in fact only watching television 
while he was reclined on the couch. Both Petitioner and the other employee present at the time in question 
denied that either Petitioner or the other employee were sleeping and confirmed that each had been watching 
television. 

16. On February 28, 1994, after consulting with Michael Watson, the Area Director for Sandhills 
Center, Rickman and Patterson caused an Oral Warning to be made against Petitioner for giving the appearance 
of "sleep-like behavior" and placing a chair "against the [unspecified] door in such a fashion that it would fall 
when the door was opened." Upon issuing the Oral Warning, Respondent immediately suspended Petitioner 
for one (1) week. 

17. Respondent has not offered any evidence in support of its Oral Warning at any stage of 
Petitioner's appeal. 

18. At no time at issue herein did Respondent have any written guidelines describing which 
actions, inactions or policy violations would result in what disciplinary action. Respondent has not given its 
employees any prior notice, either in writing or orally, of which sanctions would be assessed for which policy 
infraction. 

19. Respondent knew, or should have known, of female employees who slept during their shifts 
at Mallard Lane, or who talked on the Mallard Lane business phone in violation of Respondent's policy; but 
it failed to cause any disciplinary action to be taken against them. Respondent did not sanction any employee 
for Mallard Lane, other than Petitioner, for engaging in "sleep-like behavior" for more than a year before it 
sanctioned Petitioner. 

20. The expression "sleep-like behavior" is void for vagueness unless it means anything besides 
sleeping, which is how Petitioner reasonably interpreted it. Because Respondent's policy only prohibited 
employees from reclining while resting, and Petitioner was watching TV while in a reclined position, Petitioner 
did not violate Respondent's policy regarding giving the appearance of engaging in "sleep-like behavior" or 
reclining while resting. 

21. The Respondent suspended Petitioner and issued an Oral Warning before Petitioner had an 
opportunity to request that Respondent allow him to pursue his rights to informal problem-solving under 
Respondent's Policy and Procedures. 

22. The Respondent suspended Petitioner and issued the Oral Warning without allowing Petitioner 
a hearing or an appeal to any person independent of the Respondent's Personnel Manager (Patterson) and 
Rickman. 

23. Respondent's suspension of and issuance of an Oral Warning to Petitioner on February 28, 
1994, was arbitrary and capricious, because Respondent had not adequately defined what constitutes "giving 
the appearance of sleep-like behavior"; Respondent had not notified its employees of a policy against placing 
a chair in the doorway between the kitchen and the office area; Respondent had failed to specify which 
sanctions or disciplinary actions were to be imposed for policy or procedures violations; Respondent failed to 
provide Petitioner with a fair opportunity to be heard in connection with the allegations in the Oral Warning; 
and Respondent's staff persons who made the allegations against Petitioner that resulted in the Oral Warning 
had failed to apply the same interpretations of the staff rules to female employees that they applied to the two 
(2) male employees (including Petitioner) in connection with the incident on February 13, 1994. 



9:22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1951 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



24. On April 10, 1994, Petitioner, upon hearing noise from "L's" bedroom, undertook to assist 
another employee (Jimmy Mclntyre) who was attempting to wake up "L" so that she could shower. When 
Petitioner entered "L's" bedroom, she was engaged in a fit of anger - kicking, yelling and waiving her arms. 
Petitioner followed the appropriate procedures for graduated voice guidance, but "L's" rage increased; and she 
grabbed her pocketbook and began to swing it wildly and to kick. In doing so, she fell onto the floor, where 
she continued to swing both arms and kick her legs. Initially, when Petitioner began to walk towards "L," 
Mclntyre stepped forward, but he quickly backed off and moved to the corner of "L's" bedroom when "L" 
began to swing her pocketbook, kick, and swing her arms. Mclntyre appeared to Petitioner to be frightened 
and concerned about his own safety, and he seemed to resist any participation in assisting Petitioner with "L." 

25. Since "L" was placed at Mallard Lane, Respondent has prepared a number of special plans 
(called "Objective Plans") for "L." From at least 1990 through 1992, the plans recommended a standard 
therapeutic hold described in the PIC handout for handling "L" when she engages in aggressive behavior. At 
some time. Respondent amended "L's" plan to recommend a "modified" therapeutic hold for "L," to account 
for her left arm hemiparesis. However, before April 10, 1994, Respondent failed to advise all of its employees 
of the modified hold or the change in "L's" plan. Moreover, 
the modified therapeutic hold for "L" may not always be applicable when "L's" behavior is severe. On 
occasions prior to April 10, 1994, "L" has broken light bulbs and glass in her bedroom and created conditions 
potentially injurious to herself and others. Respondent's administrators have advised staff persons that in such 
circumstances they should "do the best they can" and to use their common sense to minimize the risk of injury 
to "L" (or other clients) and the staff members. 

26. There is credible evidence that Mclntyre is physically slight and effeminate. As of April 10, 
1994, he had only worked at Mallard Lane for eight (8) months. He had expressed to Petitioner fears of being 
injured by Mallard Lane's clients and had shied from interacting with the clients when their behavior was 
physical. 

27. Because of Mclntyre's appearance, actions and previous statements, Petitioner reasonably 
believed that Mclntyre feared injury by "L" and would not provide assistance in transporting "L," even if 
asked. As a result, Petitioner reasonably did not ask for Mclntyre's assistance. 

28. Neither the PIC rules nor "L's" objective plans require that an employee request assistance when 
attempting to apply a hold on "L" or when attempting to transport "L." Respondent's staff persons have not 
advised its employees that they are required to ask for assistance when attempting to remove "L" in an exigent 
situation or when attempting to apply a hold on "L. " 

29. Because of "L's" actions, Petitioner reasonably believed that her violent actions might result 
in injury to herself or others, including Mclntyre, if she were not removed from her bedroom. 

30. Accordingly, on April 10, 1994, when "L" began to swing her arms, in one of which she held 
her pocketbook, and to kick, Petitioner reasonably attempted to lift "L" and assist her to the bathroom without 
requesting Mclntyre's assistance. On a number of occasions that Petitioner lifted "L," she fell limp to the 
floor; and at that time, she again began to swing her arms and pocketbook and to kick. After Petitioner had 
carried "L" in this manner to the area between the bathroom and her bedroom, where she could not injure 
Mclntyre or herself, Petitioner left her so that she could enter the bathroom on her own. 

31. On the evening of April 11, 1994, more than twenty-four (24) hours after that incident, 
Mclntyre reported to Rickman that Petitioner had grabbed "L" by the feet, yanked her off the bed, then 
dragged her to the bathroom, where she sobbed as she sat on the stool. Rickman immediately examined "L" 
and found no physical injuries of any kind. At no time within the more than twenty-four (24) hours of any 
such incident had "L" complained of an incident with Petitioner; nor had she claimed that she had been hurt 
or was experiencing any pain or mental anguish; and in the past, "L" has never shown any hesitation to report 
injuries or express pain, real or imagined. Nor had "L" in the intervening twenty-four (24) hours or more 
since the incident exhibited any behavior consistent with any such injuries or pain or mental anguish. Mclntyre 
did not give Rickman a reasonable explanation for having delayed so long in reporting the alleged incident. 



1952 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



Despite the absence of any corroboration, and the highly questionable validity of the allegation by Mclntyre, 
Rickman and Patterson cause Petitioner to be immediately suspended; and they reported to the Richmond 
County Department of Social Services ("DSS") that an allegation of abuse of "L" had been made against 
Petitioner, thus prompting an investigation of the incident of April 10, 1994. 

32. The investigation of allegations of abuse of "L" on or about April 10, 1994, resulted in a 
determination that there was no substantiation that Petitioner willfully abused "L." 

33. Respondent's Policy and Procedure provides that rapid intervention by staff persons may be 
indicated when unexpected and several forms of inappropriate behavior causes imminent danger of the client 
causing injury to herself or others or substantial property damage is occurring. 

34. Respondent's Policy and Procedure provides that staff persons may, in order to repel or secure 
a violent or aggressive client, use the degree of force that is necessary, depending upon the individual 
characteristics of the client and the degree of aggressiveness displayed by "L" on the occasion at issue. 

35. The Petitioner complied with Respondent's Policy and Procedure for rapidly intervening and 
applying a reasonable amount of force in order to prevent "L" from injuring herself or others, in light of her 
past behavior, physical characteristics and the degree of aggressiveness displayed by "L" on the occasion at 
issue. 

36. Other employees have observed Petitioner in his relations with Mallard Lane's clients, 
including "L," and they have not seen him mistreat or abuse them or violate PIC rules. 

37. Petitioner's evaluations have been good, and Respondent had no reasonable cause to believe 
that Petitioner mistreated or abused "L" or any other Mallard Lane clients, either on April 10, 1994, or 
otherwise. 

38. Respondent had no written or other policy that it followed consistently in connection with 
allegations of abuse of "L. " At one time, its written policy, contained in her Objective Plan, was to ignore 
"L's" own allegations of abuse by staff persons. 

39. Petitioner was earning approximately $6.93 per hour when he was suspended February 13, 
1994, for one (1) week. At that time, he was working about twenty-four (24) hours per week. 

40. Petitioner was earning approximately $7.13 per hour when he was suspended April 12, 1994, 
for two (2) weeks. He was working approximately twenty-four (24) hours per week. 

41. During the investigations of the allegations of abusing "L," and before Petitioner was 
suspended, Patterson and Rickman spoke with Petitioner, who described the April 10, 1994, incident with "L." 
He explained why he attempted to transport "L" without Mclntyre's assistance and why he attempted to lift "L" 
in the manner that he did. Patterson and Rickman told Petitioner that they thought that he had acted in the 
manner that he did because of his background in law enforcement. 

42. After the investigations cleared Petitioner of any allegations of abuse of "L," on or about April 
27, 1994, the Respondent issued a Written Warning to Petitioner for (a) failing to ask Mclntyre for assistance, 
and (b) failing to use the special modified therapeutic hold for "L." 

43 . Respondent's suspension of and issuance of a Written Warning to Petitioner in connection with 
the incident on April 10, 1994, was arbitrary and capricious, because Petitioner complied with the procedures 
for handling and transporting "L" of which he had been advised; his handling and transporting "L" on this 
occasion were consistent with the Respondent's written Policy and Procedures and the oral instructions by 
Respondent's staff persons to employees at Mallard Lane, especially for exigent circumstances. 

44. That Respondent failed to consider Petitioner's reasonable belief that Mclntyre would not 



9:22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1953 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



provide assistance (even if asked) and Petitioner was not required to perform an unnecessary act of asking 
Mclntyre for assistance when Mclntyre plainly would have refused. 

45. Before Respondent suspended Petitioner and issued the Written Warning against him in 
connection with the April 10, 1994, incident, Petitioner was not given the opportunity to request informal 
problem-solving procedures, in violation of Respondent's own written Policy and Procedures. 

46. On or about April 28, 1994, Petitioner gave notice of appeal of the Written Warning through 
a letter by Petitioner's counsel that also demanded a retraction of and apology for the statements in both the 
Oral Warning and Written Warning. That letter also stated that otherwise, the Petitioner would have to protect 
his rights in whatever ways are available to him. Respondent's employees and board of directors understood 
that the other ways by which Petitioner might protect his rights included litigation. 

47. Upon receipt of that letter, Patterson consulted in person and by telephone on several occasions 
with Respondent's usual attorney, Millicent Gibson Diehl, who as counsel for Sandhills Center wrote 
Petitioner's counsel on May 4, 1994, in order to defend the Respondent's actions and describe the appeals 
procedures. 

48. On May 11, 1994, Diehl, Patterson and Watson met with Respondent's Board of Directors 
and with the 5-person Appeals Committee, which committee is formed from Respondent's board of directors. 
At that meeting, Diehl discussed Petitioner's appeal, the threat of Petitioner's litigation against Respondent, 
and the underlying incidents that led to both the Oral Warning and Written Warning. 

49. On May 12, 1994, as counsel for the Appeals Committee, and pursuant to the instructions of 
that committee, Diehl advised Petitioner's counsel that the Appeals Committee would, on May 18, 1994, 
conduct a hearing in connection with Petitioner's appeal. 

50. Between May 11, 1994, and May 18, 1994, Diehl assisted Patterson and Pat McDonald in 
preparation for the Appeals Committee hearing. That assistance included the review of their affidavits for the 
Appeals Committee hearing on May 18, 1994. 

51 . At the May 18, 1994, Appeals Committee hearing, Patterson presented the evidence that Diehl 
had helped her to prepare. Neither Patterson nor Diehl nor Watson advised Petitioner, Petitioner's counsel 
or the Appeals Committee that Diehl had assisted Respondent in preparing for the hearing. 

52. At the May 18, 1994, hearing before the Appeals Committee, after Petitioner's counsel and 
Patterson submitted their presentations, Petitioner, Petitioner's counsel, Patterson and Watson left the hearing 
room; and Diehl met privately with the Appeals Committee to discuss, in Diehl's words, the "nature and 
sufficiency" of the parties' evidence. In that private meeting, she interpreted and evaluated the written 
materials presented to the Committee and advised the Committee that the Committee could consider Petitioner's 
evidence about the Oral Warning. In addition, Diehl presented and interpreted Respondent's rules, which had 
not been introduced by either party during the hearing. During that private meeting with the Appeals 
Committee, Diehl did not advise that she had helped Respondent prepare its presentation; and although she 
purported to point out weaknesses in Petitioner's contentions, she did not point out the shortcomings in 
Respondent's case or the strengths of Petitioner's case. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner's counsel was present 
at Diehl's private meeting with the Appeals Committee; nor was Petitioner given an opportunity to respond to 
Diehl's presentation to the Appeals Committee during that private meeting. If the Appeals Committee had 
questions about either side's presentation or the procedural rules that were available, it could have offered 
Petitioner or Petitioner's counsel the chance to answer those questions, but it failed and refused to do so; 
instead, it consulted in private with Diehl. 

53. During the May 18, 1994, Appeals Committee hearing, Patterson offered an Objective Plan 
for "L" dated September 22, 1993, and the Petitioner's Certificates for completing his PIC training (dated 
August 19, 1993) as evidence that Petitioner knew, or should have known, of the "modified" therapeutic hold; 
however, it offered no other such plan to the Committee, even though Petitioner demonstrated by the dates of 



1954 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



the documents that he could not possibly have been shown the September 22, 1993, document at his August, 
1993, PIC training. 

54. Before the events of April 10, 1994, no Sandhills Center employee, agent or representative 
had instructed Petitioner about the Objective Plan for "L" that is dated September 22, 1993. 

55. Between August 19, 1994, and April 10, 1994, Petitioner did not undergo, and was not 
required to undergo, further PIC training. 

56. Rule 5.1(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides, "A lawyer shall not represent a 
client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another 
client or to a third person... unless (1) The lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely 
affected; and (2) The client consents after full disclosure...." Diehl's responsibility to her two (2) clients - 
Sandhills Center and the Appeals Committee - severely infringed on Petitioner's right to a fair and impartial 
hearing before the Appeals Committee. Diehl continued in her representation of both clients without obtaining 
their consent after full disclosure of the nature of the conflict and of the implications of the common 
representation as it affected Petitioner's right to a fair and impartial hearing. 

57. Diehl's participation in both the preparation of Respondent's staff persons for the Appeals 
Committee hearing and the Appeals Committee's private deliberations on May 18, 1994, denied Petitioner of 
his right to a fair and impartial hearing. 

58. Rule 5. 10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, "A lawyer who represents a corporation 
or other organization represents and owes his [sic] allegiance to the entity and shall not permit his [sic] 
professional judgment to be compromised in favor of any other entity or individual." Diehl's representation 
of the Appeals Committee required that she act to insure that the Appeals Committee's hearing was fair and 
impartial. She allowed her representation of Respondent to compromise her professional judgment, because 
she promoted the Respondent's interests during her secret meeting with the Appeals Committee, at the expense 
of the Appeals Committee's obligation to provide Petitioner with a fair and impartial hearing. Through her 
active prosecution of Respondent's position during the Appeals Committee's deliberations, under the guise of 
evaluating the "nature and sufficiency" of the parties' evidence, Diehl tainted the Appeals Committee's 
deliberations against Petitioner. 

59. Canon 9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides, "A lawyer should avoid even the 
appearance of professional impropriety. " Even if the Appeals Committee would have reached the same result 
without Diehl's involvement, her dual representation and her active participation in the Appeals Committee's 
deliberations strongly give the appearance of an impropriety; and Petitioner was the unfortunate victim of that 
appearance of impropriety. 

60. The impartiality and fairness of the Appeals Committee's deliberations were also tainted by 
the potential threat of Petitioner's civil litigation against Respondent. The Committee members' personal 
financial interests were adverse to Petitioner; and the members of the Appeals Committee discussed their 
persona] exposure from Petitioner's claims during the May 11, 1994, meetings with Diehl, Patterson and 
Watson. As a result, at the May 18, 1994, hearing, the Appeals Committee's deliberations were tainted by 
the direct financial interest of its members in the outcome. Their personal interests in the outcome of the case 
insured that the hearing would, at least, have the appearance of a foregone conclusion; and coupled with 
Diehl's participation in the Committee's deliberations, Petitioner was not accorded a fair and impartial hearing 
by the Appeals Committee on May 18, 1994. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. This Court has jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject matter in this action; 

2. This hearing was conducted pursuant to G.S. Section 1A-1, et seg., the Rules of Civil 
Procedure, and G.S. Section 8C-1, the Rules of Evidence, as required by the North Carolina General Statutes. 



9:22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1955 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



3. The Respondent did not have just cause to issue the Oral Warning date February 28, 1994, 
or to suspend Petitioner in connection with the incident on or about February 13, 1994. 

4. The Respondent's Oral Warning dated February 28, 1994, and suspension of Petitioner in 
connection with the incident on February 13, 1994, was arbitrary and capricious, and was not supported by 
substantial evidence. 

5. The Respondent did not have just cause to suspend Petitioner or to issue the Written Warning 
against him dated April 27, 1994, in connection with the incident on April 10, 1994. 

6. The Respondent's suspension of Petitioner in connection with the incident on April 10, 1994, 
was arbitrary and capricious, and was not supported by substantial evidence. 

7. The Respondent's issuance of the Written Warning dated April 27, 1994, was arbitrary and 
capricious and was not supported by substantial evidence. 

8. Petitioner was denied his right to a fair and impartial hearing before the Appeals Committee 
under the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution, because of the conflict of interest 
of the attorney Millicent Gibson Diehl in her representation of Sandhills Center by preparing Respondent's staff 
persons to defend Respondent's actions vis-a-vis Petitioner at the Appeals Committee hearing on May 18, 1994, 
then participating in a private meeting with the Appeals Committee after its hearing on May 18, 1994, when 
she purported to act as the Appeals Committee lawyer and evaluate the "nature and sufficiency" of the parties' 
evidence, one-half of which she had participated in preparing. 

9. Because of Respondent's wrongful suspension of Petitioner in connection with the incident or 
February 13, 1994, Petitioner lost wages of $166.32. 

10. Because of Respondent's wrongful suspension of Petitioner in connection with the incident on 
April 10, 1994, Petitioner lost wages of $342.24. 

1 1. Respondent should reimburse Petitioner the sum of $506.56 for his lost wages from the two 
(2) above-described suspensions. 

12. Respondent should set aside and immediately expunge from its records all mention of the 
above-described incidents on February 13, 1994, and April 10, 1994, to the extent that they pertain, mention, 
relate in any way, including (but not limited to) the Oral Warning, the Written Warning, the suspensions related 
thereto, and the investigations in connections therewith. 

13. Respondent should reimburse Petitioner for his court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for 
the prosecution of his appeal of the Oral Warning and Written Warning herein. 

RECOMMENDED DECISION 

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that: 

1 . Respondent reverse its decision to issue Oral and Written Warnings, and suspend Petitioner 
regarding the incidents of February 13, 1994, and April 10, 1994. 

2. Respondent should expunge from its records all mention of the incidents of February 13, 1994, 
and April 10, 1994, to the extent that they pertain, mention or relate in any way, including but not limited to, 
the Oral Warning and Written Warning, and the suspensions related thereto, and the investigations in 
connection therewith. 

3. It is recommended that Petitioner should receive lost wages of $508.56 for Respondent's wrongful 
suspension of Petitioner. 



1956 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS 



4. Reasonable attorneys fees be awarded to Petitioner. 

ORDER 

It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative 
Hearings, RO. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 
150B-36(b). 

NOTICE 

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an 
opportunity to file exceptions to this recommended decision and to present written arguments to those in 
the agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a). 

The agency is required by G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and 
to furnish a copy to the parties' attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings. 

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the Office of State Personnel. 

This the 30th day of December, 1994. 



Sammie Chess, Jr. 
Administrative Law Judge 



9:22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1957 



NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 



A he North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) has four major subdivisions of rules. Two of these, 
titles and chapters, are mandatory. The major subdivision of the NCAC is the title. Each major 
department in the North Carolina executive branch of government has been assigned a title number. 
Titles are further broken down into chapters which shall be numerical in order. The other two, 
subchapters and sections are optional subdivisions to be used by agencies when appropriate. 



TITLE/MAJOR DIVISIONS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 
TITLE DEPARTMENT LICENSING BOARDS CHAPTER 



1 


Administration 


Acupuncture 


1 


2 


Agriculture 


Architecture 


2 


3 


Auditor 


Auctioneers 


4 


4 


Commerce 


Barber Examiners 


6 


5 


Correction 


Certified Public Accountant Examiners 


8 


6 


Council of State 


Chiropractic Examiners 


10 


7 


Cultural Resources 


General Contractors 


12 


8 


Elections 


Cosmetic Art Examiners 


14 


9 


Governor 


Dental Examiners 


16 


10 


Human Resources 


Dietetics/Nutrition 


17 


11 


Insurance 


Electrical Contractors 


18 


12 


Justice 


Electrolysis 


19 


13 


Labor 


Foresters 


20 


14A 


Crime Control & Public Safety 


Geologists 


21 


15A 


Environment, Health, and Natural 


Hearing Aid Dealers and Fitters 


22 




Resources 


Landscape Architects 


26 


16 


Public Education 


Landscape Contractors 


28 


17 


Revenue 


Marital and Family Therapy 


31 


18 


Secretary of State 


Medical Examiners 


32 


19A 


Transportation 


Midwifery Joint Committee 


33 


20 


Treasurer 


Mortuary Science 


34 


*21 


Occupational Licensing Boards 


Nursing 


36 


22 


Administrative Procedures 


Nursing Home Administrators 


37 


23 


Community Colleges 


Occupational Therapists 


38 


24 


Independent Agencies 


Opticians 


40 


25 


State Personnel 


Optometry 


42 


26 


Administrative Hearings 


Osteopathic Examination & Reg. (Repealed) 


44 






Pharmacy 


46 






Physical Therapy Examiners 


48 






Plumbing, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors 


50 






Podiatry Examiners 


52 






Professional Counselors 


53 






Practicing Psychologists 


54 






Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors 


56 






Real Estate Appraisal Board 


57 






Real Estate Commission 


58 






Refrigeration Examiners 


60 






Sanitarian Examiners 


62 






Social Work Certification 


63 






Speech & Language Pathologists & Audiologists 


64 






Therapeutic Recreation Certification 


65 






Veterinary Medical Board 


66 



Note: Title 21 contains the chapters of the various occupational licensing boards. 



1958 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



CUMULATIVE INDEX 



CUMULATIVE INDEX 

(April 1994 - March 1995) 

Pages Issue 

1 - 75 1 - April 

76 - 122 2 - April 

123 - 226 3 - May 

227 - 305 4 - May 

306 - 348 5 - June 

349 - 411 6 - June 

412 - 503 7 - July 

504 - 587 8 - July 

588 - 666 9 - August 

667 - 779 10 - August 

780 - 876 11 - September 

877 - 956 12 - September 

957 - 1062 13 - October 

1063 - 1151 14 - October 

1152 - 1241 15 - November 

1242 - 1339 16 - November 

1340 - 1392 17 - December 

1393 - 1512 18 - December 

1513 - 1602 19 - January 

1603 - 1696 20 - January 

1697 - 1882 21 - February 

1883 - 1962 22 - February 



Unless otherwise identified, page references in this Index are to proposed rules. 



ADMINISTRATION 

State Employees Combined Campaign, 878 

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 

Rules Division, 1663 

AGRICULTURE 

Plant Industry, 127, 1245 

COMMERCE 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, 423 
Banking Commission, 884, 1515, 1701 
Community Assistance, 1394 
Energy Division, 4 

COMMUNITY COLLEGES 

Community Colleges, 1305, 1661 

CORRECTION 

Prisons, Division of, 1157 



9:22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1959 



CUMULATIVE INDEX 



CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

State Highway Patrol, Division of, 243 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Arts Council, 960 

State Library, Division of, 1889 

ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Coastal Management, 443, 825, 1185, 1283, 1427, 1550 

DEM/ Air Quality, 80, 805 

Departmental Rules, 254 

Environmental Management, 81, 258, 352, 616, 959, 1261, 1348, 1405, 1639, 1899 

Health Services, 323, 370, 445, 834, 913, 1000, 1112, 1557 

Marine Fisheries Commission, 820, 989, 1109, 1244 

Mining Commission, 442 

NPDES Permit, 3, 232 

Parks and Recreation, 1194 

Radiation Protection Commission, 678 

Sedimentation Control Commission, 1648 

Soil and Water Conservation, 1371 

Solid Waste Management, 171, 364, 1287 

Water Resources, 165, 255 

Wildlife Resources Commission, 38, 42, 84, 358, 830, 910, 999, 1285, 1427, 1553, 1653, 1854, 1900 

Wildlife Resources Commission Proclamation, 125 

FINAL DECISION LETTERS 

Voting Rights Act, 2, 312, 506, 594, 958, 1243, 1340, 1393, 1700 

GENERAL STATUTES 

Chapter 150B, 780 

GOVERNOR/LT. GOVERNOR 

Executive Orders, 1, 123, 227, 306, 349, 412, 504, 588, 667, 877, 957, 1152, 1242, 1513, 1697, 1883 

HUMAN RESOURCES 

Aging, Division of, 1890 

Child Day Care Commission, 10 

Child Development, 1531 

Children's Services, 136 

Day Care Rules, 148 

Departmental Rules, 668 

Facility Services, 4, 128, 423, 509, 668, 890, 1341, 1603 

Medical Assistance, 318, 440, 513, 597, 964, 1155, 1247, 1631, 1891 

Medical Care Commission, 1161, 1718 

Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services, 13, 24, 36, 313, 430, 961, 

1063 
Social Services, 136, 595, 802, 1167, 1343 
Vocational Rehabilitation Services, 434 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

State Health Plan Purchasing Alliance Board, 99, 1030 



1960 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 9:22 



CUMULATIVE INDEX 



INSURANCE 

Actuarial Services Division, 1072, 1257, 1635 

Agent Services Division, 1065 

Consumer Services Division, 1633 

Departmental Rules, 891, 1632 

Financial Evaluation Division, 892 

Life and Health Division, 525, 905, 1071, 1255, 1634 

Medical Database Commission, 605 

Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements, 76 

Property and Casualty Division, 892, 1634 

Special Services Division, 76 

JUSTICE 

Alarm Systems Licensing Board, 351, 614, 804, 1175, 1853 

Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission, 149, 981 

Private Protective Services, 802, 1174, 1400 

Sheriffs' Education & Training Standards Commission, 670, 986, 1075 

State Bureau of Investigation, 234, 530 

LABOR 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel, 1076 

Mine and Quarry Division, 239 

OSHA, 77, 160, 675, 906, 1258, 1401, 1546 

Private Personnel Services, 1176 

Variance, 230 

LICENSING BOARDS 

Acupuncture Licensing Board, 44 

Architecture, Board of, 1905 

Auctioneers Licensing Board, 836 

Barber Examiners, 563 

Chiropractic Examiners, 376 

Cosmetic Art Examiners, 280, 1027 

Dietetics/Nutrition, 1115 

Electrical Contractors Examiners, 1199 

Electrolysis Examiners, 1204 

General Contractors, 1658 

Landscape Architects, Board of, 95 

Medical Examiners, 192, 565, 1119, 1206 

Mortuary Science, 720, 1120 

Nursing, Board of, 45, 724, 1209 

Opticians, Board of, 845 

Optometry, Board of Examiners, 194, 1660 

Physical Therapy Examiners, 566 

Plumbing, Heating and Fire Sprinkler Contractors, Board of, 96, 725 

Practicing Psychologists, Board of, 97, 1571 

Professional Counselors, Board of Licensed, 50 

Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, 728, 924 

Sanitarian Examiners, 730 

LIST OF RULES CODIFIED 

List of Rules Codified, 53, 196, 281, 378, 635, 742, 926, 1041, 1306, 1480, 1666, 1917 

PUBLIC EDUCATION 

Elementary and Secondary Education, 375, 540, 920, 1197, 1568 



9:22 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER February 15, 1995 1961 



CUMULATIVE INDEX 



SECRETARY OF STATE 

Land Records Management Division, 712 

Notary Public Division, 1112 

Securities Division, 476, 616, 709, 1904 

STATE PERSONNEL 

Office of State Personnel, 477, 847, 1214, 1574 

TAX REVIEW BOARD 

Orders of Tax Review, 415, 1885 

TRANSPORTATION 

Administration, Director of, 1478 
Highways, Division of, 85, 718, 923, 1114, 1300 
Motor Vehicles, Division of, 89, 276, 542 
Secretary of Transportation, 1658 



1962 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 



February 15, 1995 



9:22 



BARCLAYS OFFICIAL 
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 

The full Barclays Official North Carolina Administrative Code consists of 22 volumes, totaling in excess of 
10,000 pages. It is supplemented monthly with replacement pages. A one year subscription to the full 
publication, including supplements, can be purchased for seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00). 
Individual volumes may also be purchased with supplement service. Renewal subscriptions for supplements 
to the initial publication are available at one-half the new subscription price. 

PRICE LIST FOR THE SUBSCRIPTION YEAR 



Volume 


Title 


Chapter 


New Total 
Subject Subscription* Quantity Price 


1 -22 


Full Code 
1 

2 

2 

3 

4 

4 

5 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 

11 

12 
13 
13 
13 
14A 

15A 
15A 
15A 
15A 
15A 


1 -39 
1 -24 
25 -53 
1 -4 
1 -2 
3 -20 
1 -2 
3 -4 
1 -4 
1 - 12 
1 -9 
1 -4 

I - 2 
3A-3K 
3L-3R 
3S -3W 
4-6 

7 

8 -9 
10 

II - 14 
15 - 17 
18 

19 -30 

31 -33 

34 -41 

42 

43 -51 

1 - 19 

1 - 12 

1 -6 

7 

8 - 16 

1 - 11 

1 -2 
3 -6 
7 

8 -9 
10 


All titles 
Administration 
Agriculture 
Agriculture 
Auditor 

Commerce (includes ABC) 
Commerce 
Correction 
Correction 
Council of State 
Cultural Resources 
Elections 

Govemor/Lt. Governor 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Human Resources 
Insurance 
Justice 
Labor 
OSHA 
Labor 

Crime Control and 
Public Safety 
EHNR (includes EMC) 
EHNR 

Coastal Management 
EHNR 
Wildlife 


$750.00 




1 


$90.00 




2 


$75.00 




2 


$75.00 




2 


$10.00 




3 


$45.00 




4 


$90.00 




5 


$60.00 




5 


$30.00 




5 
5 


$30.00 
$60.00 




6 


$10.00 




6 


$45.00 




7 


$30.00 




7 


$90.00 




7 


$45.00 




7 


$30.00 




8 


$30.00 




8 


$30.00 




8 


$30.00 




8 


$30.00 




8 


$60.00 




8 


$45.00 




9 


$75.00 




9 


$90.00 




10 


$30.00 




10 


$60.00 




11 


$45.00 




11 


$90.00 




12 


$90.00 




13 


$90.00 




14 


$30.00 




14 


$45.00 




14 


$45.00 




14 


$45.00 




15 


$90.00 




15 


$45.00 




15 


$45.00 




16 


$30.00 




16 


$45.00 





Revised 12/15/94 



Continued 



Volume 


Title 


Chapter 


New 
Subject Subscription* 


Quantity 


Total 
Price 


16 


15A 

15A 

16 

17 

17 

18 

19A 

20 

21 

21 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 


11-18 EHNR $90.00 
19-26 EHNR (includes Breathalizer]B75.00 
1 - 6 Education $30.00 
1 - 6 Revenue $75.00 
7-11 Revenue $60.00 
1 - 8 Secretary of State $30.00 
1 - 6 Transportation $90.00 
1 - 9 Treasurer $45.00 
1 - 16 Licensing Boards $75.00 
17-37 Licensing Boards $75.00 
38 - 70 Licensing Boards $60.00 
N/A Administrative Procedures (repealed) N/A 
1 - 3 Community Colleges $10.00 
1 - 5 Independent Agencies $10.00 
1 State Personnel $60.00 
1 - 4 Administrative Hearings $10.00 

Binders (1 binder per item ordered) $16.00 
Shipping & Handling (per item ordered) $4.50 

Subtotal 

(North Carolina sales tax 6%) 

Total 






17 






IS 






IS 






IS 






14 






14 






19 






20 






20 






21 

N/A 






22 




22 






22 






22 































(Make checks payable to Barclays Law Publishers) 
* This price includes the title in its current form plus supplementation for the subscription year. 



Mail To: 

BARCLAYS LAW PUBLISHERS 

P.O. BOX 3066 

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083-3066 

Phone: (800) 888-3600 
Fax: (415) 244-0408 



Name 



Address 



Room/Suite 



City 



State 



Zip 



Phone Number 

If Credit Card Order: 

□ VISA □ Master Card 



□ American Express 



Credit Card Number 



Signature 



Exp. Date 



LttL-l\9LZ eurioiTQ ipjojM ^Siapx 
SSUUC8H 3AI)BJ)STUIUipy JO 33IJJO 



H 
LS 

Id 



FOLD HERE 



NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER 
ORDER FORM 



Please enter my subscription for the North Carolina Register to start with the issue. 

($105.00/year subscription. N.C. subscribers please add sales tax.) 

Renew North Carolina Register 

Check Enclosed Q Please bill me 

>e make checks payable to Office of Administrative Hearings 

IE ADDRESS 



STATE ZIP 



NE 



irn to Office of Administrative Hearings - fold at line, staple at bottom and affix postage.) 



CHANGE OF ADDRESS 



1. Present Address 



NAME 



ADDRESS 



CITY 



STATE 



ZIP 



2. New Address 



NAME 



ADDRESS 



CITY 



STATE 



ZIP 



Office of Administrative Hearing! 

P.O. Drawer 27447 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447 




as. POSTAGE* 



: - i.10 



; -;E FCR 372 530 * 



FIRST CLASS MAIL 



585 
UHIU. OF NORTH CAROLINA 
LAU LIBRARY CB8 3385 
UAN HECKE-yETTACH 064-A 
CHAPEL HILL 



NC 27599 



.